St. Paul daily globe., 1888-05-30
THE TRUSTEES REPORT.
1t Was Discussed at Long Meet.
ing Yesterday Afternoon,

ing eSCerUay AFTERNOON.
During yesterday afternoon the mem
bers of the board of trustees of the
association held a private conference in
the parlorS of President Miles at the
Ryan, and the time was consumed in
discussing the report which will be
submitted to the convention to-day for
ratification or rejection.
In the opening paragraph of the re-
port prominence is accorded by the
trustees to what they term the most
important and far-reaching occurrence
to the trade that has taken place for
many years, namely, the prohibi-
supreme court, growing out of
the Mugler case, the defense of which
was assumed by the association in 1888.
Senator Vest closed the case with an ar
gument before the United States su-
preme court, and proposition was sub
mitted by a delegation of Western mem
berS to bring a new case before the
court and solicit postponement of the
final consideration of that against Mug
Ter. This motion was opposed by Sena-
tor Vest. he being of the opinion that
the Mugler suit possessed the essen
tial features of a good test case.
ItSDOUSlDllIJN
of interfering with the counsel's pro-
gramme, the trustees allowed final argu-
ment to be made, fully determined,
however, to spare no efforts to have
other prohibtory suits then pending
properly defended, and among these was
the case of The State of Kansas VS.. Her
man Zeibold ct al.
Neither the masterly argument of
Hon. Joseph II. Choate on the Zeibold
case, nor the summary which Senator
Vest-whom the brewers of st. Louis
had engaged-submitted on the occa-
sion of the hearing in the Zeibold case,
had any effect upon the minds of the
majority of the supreme court judges,
famous decision rendered by the same
tribunal in 1S47, conceding the states of
the Union the right and power to re-
strain the liquor traffic in its entirety, to
the point of utter prohibition, but they
even went so far as to repudiate the
claim upheld made by lower court,
that the state must
INDEMNIFY THOSE CITIZENS
whose prOperty-acquired and utilized
under the protection and with the sane
ton of the LAWS destroyed by reason
of an exercise of the right and power
thus conceded to the-states. The hopes
VI 1ueuiDclS VI Jul ItSttu
this claim; a claim which natural JUS
tice-a thing that sometimes appears to
be essentially different from the justice
administered in courts of law-shows
to be unassailable, since the property
destroyed, ostensibly for the COM
mon welfare, cannot in any sense
be classed as nuisance; and even if
that were possible it would not in this
instance relieve the state from the OBJ
legation of indemnifying the owner, be-
cause the passage of the prohibitory
law, the constitutionality of which is
based upon the right of states to abate
nuisances and forbid all things destruc-
tive of public morals and public pros
perity, the very same states here in
question, not only sanctioned brewing
as legitimate and lawful business and
derived revenue from it., but even in
vited brewers and winners to settle
within their borders.
While this decision, so far as the prin-
cipal questions are concerned, may be
in accordance with the spirit of the con-