The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1888-11-01

The supreme court at Washington, rem
dered decision in the celebrated case of
John s. Kidd plaintiff is error VS. /. E. Pear
distiller, who claimed that under the state
prohibition law the state officials could not
prevent the manufacture of Intoxicating
liquor for export to another state. He
sought to restrain the state officers from
closing up his dstillery. He claimed that
he was licensed by the board of supervisors of
Polk county to sell liquor for me-
chanical, medical, culinary and sacra-
mental purposes, during the period of the
alleged violations Of the law. His
business IN the sale of liquor for other pur-
poses without the state he claimed came un-
der the head of interstate commerce, con-
trollable only by congress: and the state
law, if it sought to prevent that commerce
came in conflict with the constitution of the
United States. He also claimed that the
statute legalized the manufacture of alcohol
for certain purposes, and thus recognized the
fact that it was q legitimate article of COM
merce, and not per Sc q nuisance. Judge
Lamar read the opinion of the court, which
was long and comprehensive. He said:
1t was of the genius and character OF the
whole government that it's action should ap-
ply to those external things which were COM
pletely within state. The manufacture OF
liquor within the state of Iowa was no less q
business within that state because the man.
ufacturer intended exporting it. 1t was
clearly within the power of the state to regu.
late the manufacture of liquor within it's
limits, whether for domestic or for foreign
consumption. The petitioner made a grave
error in saying that the statute
authorized the manufacture OF alco-
hol. The law contained sweeping prohibi-
ton, and all that saved it from complete alb
clifton were the exceptions in favor ofalcOhol
used for mechanical, medicinal culinary and
sacramental purposes. The decision of the
supreme court of Iowa is affirmed.
A Des Moines telegram, referring to this de-
cision, says: The supreme court 8 decision in
the case of Iowa vs. Kidd, or against the In
ternational distillery. of which he is the
owner, at this place, was received with
difference in the status of the dis
tillery, and would not ifit had been the re-
verse, for since this litigation was begun the
legislature passed. a law that has closed all
distilleries and breweries by forbidding the
manufacture for any purpose. Consequently
there is not distilery or brewery running in
the state, and this particular distillery,
since April 1887, when it sold it's capacity
to the Western distillers' pool, and was
closed down by order of the pool. The point
of this decision affected the old law, which
permitted the manufacture for certain pur-
poses. The state claimed that the Kidd
distillery had violated that law and
SO should be closed by injunction, which was
issued by the district court of this city. But
the distillery claimed that SO long as it's
product was exported the state could not
interfere. That position is not sustained by
the United States supreme court. But last
winter the legislature passed q new law, for
bidding all manufacture of liquor and that
law would have closed the distillery, even
had the decision gone the other way. In eff
feet this decision sustains the new law and
renders unnecessary any test ase under it.