New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-02-10

act was attacked by the hquordealers' Inc oa'oD
came befoo be sunreme Court Of the State of Kansas
in June, 1851. The report of that court may po
found in Volume % of Kansas Reports page 'oi'
under the title Of Intoxicating Liquor cases Inc
opinion Of the court was unanimous, and IL was
written by Judge David j. Brewer. Perhaps TINS Is
the opinion which leads you to charge the President
and the Senate OF the United states with having rch-
dered service IN exchange for tie confidence ana
Of the saloons" In this decision Judge brewer
discus ed several objections raised against the statc
first, that 1t cast upon the probate judges the duty Oh
designating the persons who should sell liquor lor
medical, scientific and mechanical purposes. The
liquor dealers argued that the probate judges had their
duties defined by the Constitution, and other duties
could not be imposed upon them. This objection was
ovcrruled Tie next objection discussed was that the
statute permits the probate judge to designate only
druggist who shall sell for medical, scientific
and >~-chanical purposes The liquordcalcrs argued
which argument doubtless elected most hearty ap-
plaue in the saloons of the entire cOuntry"-that 1t
class legislation to dcbar all other people except
druggists from dispensing liquor, and that the sa-
loon-kccpcr had much right anybody TO sell
for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes. In
answer to this Judge Brewer says: 1t will not be
doubted that the police power Of the state IS broad
enough and sweeping enough to uphold any reasonable
restrictions and limitations to the keeping, use or
sale Of any substance whose keeping, use or Salo
Involves danger to the general public. Here, the
sale Of liquor being allowed for medical purIu'es,
druggists who deal in medicine properly namoi as
suitable class 10 whom to intrust
such sales The Judge then argues that this
is not class legislation and does not
render the act unconstitutional Inc next objection
wa, thai the statute was 20 broad as To forbid the sale
vi cologne, extract Of lemon, etc. and that therefore u
Ircvcr saws: Whaiever lqr0r contains alcohol Is
within the statute. reads It's letter. The
letter does not always express the intent. go.
NOW, what the evil sought 10 be- rcmcdcd by TINS
an o !
was an outgowthi 1t wa the use Of Intoxicating
continues The Legislature had power to prohibit
cnhol he in f. Int the Irgl@nure never intended such
d sweeping prohibition although 50 reads it. letter
and The statute be read n the light OF the intent,
10 Wit 10 prohlbt the ale and use a, a beverage
branch Of The covers seven pagc, Of tie printed
volume On all the points raised Judge Brewer af'
This decision Ia, never been reversed by the court
from whose decree there i, no appeal and this dc
in the saloon, Of the entire country" did tis de
clsion render Judge Brewer famous a. the anu pro
Again. liquor case came before the supreme. Court
twenfy. nine volume Of Kansas reports. page 252,
under the title Of The state Nu-lcr." judge
ton concurrcd. Mugcr va, indicted and lined for Two
first. for selling beer contrary 20 thc statnte
Brewer nl"d very short memorandum, saying: |
latcs 70 IN" charge Of selling beer ON TINS branch
~ the case the Court was unanimous. and the con
81 rt
10 the case oi MS brc"c'Yl WAr 40 not care 10
formally dissent mus, ,a' ny JUDGMENT IS not ,atlS
public use without any compensation If the public
good requires the de,tuctoD IF the vnue 0 This prop
ery j. not prior compensation ~pcnsable - ON
this branch u the case H. seems terc wa, difference
~ opinion among the judge. tn, j. not an OPINION
il simply qrc tons The right Of the state to destroy
property. which was al time legally IN existence
without adequate compensation. pom this question
ard this alone the supreme Court Of the unlted Ntc,
atcrwaN expressed AN opinion contrary to that Of
sustained the supreme Court Of Kansas I'm the Muglcr
case, and thereby expressed different opinion from
Appeals Of the State Of NcwYorl and -crc.a! other
very respectable courts.
pointing Judge Brewer merely because he had been
overruled e. there is no Judge living who has not A.
~ the United state, has b"cu known - revise it, de
c-.ors upon further argument can point You To-
the state Of Ncw-York, Il tolcra3y respectable
court has on u.ce different occasions laid down
the peor decision. our aWlookS are full of the cases
where tribuunl ovcrurs or rcvcr,eS a over
To be iniablc. and you are not bishop OF MS Church
take 10 that even bishop, Of the Methodist Church do
tion, I can scarcely believe that any other bishop
II the Methodist Church than Yourself would nave
Tho Voice even II DEE had believed Judge HrcVcr To
be me i anti grGm'Gts3 nr ysal hye gnt hi, ,
u,tIr. o the charges you have made against the
President. the senate and Justice Of the supreme
about the lrt,. For u is written. thou SHAFT not
,pcak evil %; the ruler, OF thy people Acts N% >.
diner ln their opinion. 70 :, possible therefore.
barely possible. that there may bee such thng as an
part cuiar clause even boo p;oaihItorT 1W. You VIII
hardly claim that every proposed enactment l" pro,
H. r.aiirc, rllotly In harmony VITA the con,tltu-
ton, Of Stotr- II is easy 10 IMAGINE many pro
mon sense. II 20 puhNtoty hw should provide that
NV Wife should rn to jazz zoo order o. punish me LOT
the Irlou would hold such feature valid and n
decision p.ououucnE such a. provision invalid woI H
hardly cutlc any judge to o." named ana anu prohl
uuon judi even hy ,mmh'nS correspondent I'll
hunal wherein SON -ay Judc, Brewer, liquor decisions
have been reversed. held iu the Mueier case that
without c1mpcu. utou ani therein differed rom Judge
Brewer. uut tine -du" court, composed " the same
qucut case That one Of the provisions of the Iowa
prohiO.tIry law Wa, unconstitutional" pm IN, 9ub,
states render chat court FAMOUS q, an anti pro
mbitiDu" court. do You allow a court from whose
decision there l. no appeal . m0ir charitable Judg-
mcnt chan you pass upon one Who has now taken his
-cat ln Thar court H. the Iowa case the supreme
road company from, carrying intoxicating liquors from
lllluoi, Iowa, that was regulation Of inter
state government. Paul before Agrlppa did not
preach Of temperance alone but also Of Righteousness
related To temperate, truthful speech
Judge Brewer Is the son Of an American mission
teen years hOnorcd member of the highest court
II the state OF Kansas. For five years thereafter
he filled with uublcml-hei record hi, place Cir.
cuit Judge of the United states Court lie APP
pointed by a President whose moral character is
July equal To- yours. and whose opportunities for
knowing the man were much greater than yours. 10
AN Office which hc is intellectually quuliucd to IN.
lie ha, invariably sustained the principle of prohibit
ton whenever that principle h9, been involved in his
decisions. rs many other judge, have
done he has questioned the constitutlonality
of some p1rtiruar feature Of some particular pro.
hbitorv ,tatut" but when 50 questioning he has
distinctly said both i'm the hugcr and afcrwam
I'm the WairnT case GO Federal Reporter. i1-). that
his view, q, Ia the right Of the state 90 prohibit the
sale Of Intoxicating liquor a beverage remained
unchaugcd The supreme Court Of tho t'ncd States,
while holding Iowa provision 10 be unconstitutional
differed from Judge Brewer. ana from the Court If
Appeals I'm New York, 10 the one provision of the