The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1890-05-02


= a splendid argument for the moral side
Of the question, but the majority opinion
reads to us more like law, the opinion OF
( his honor, the attorney general of Kan
sas, to the contrary notwithstanding.
The following IS a statement of the
Iowa case, upon which the decision was
= handed down, and was entitled Lesley VS..
Hardin:
The property in question consisted of
122 quarter barrels of beer, III one-eighth
barrels of beer and eleven sealed cases of
beer. All Of the beer was manufactured
by company at the city of Peoria, Ill.
and put IN kegs and cases. and each OF
the kegs We're sealed. Each bottle of
beer was corked and the corln fastened
with metallic cap, sealed and covered
with tin foil, and each case was sealed
with metallic seal, and to open the
cases the metallic seals had to be broken.
The property as above described wasship-
ped by railway from the city of Peoria
to the city Of keokuk, in Iowa, to one
John Lesley, resident Of Keokuk, who
IS an agent Of the company of Peoria,
and placed in a building owned by a
member of the company. 1t was placed
III li1c buBu1ilG 10 DC 6OII Oh sICOhII Oh
the company. 1t was offered for sale in
kegs and cases unbroken. This business
had been carried on for several years.
The agent of the company made the
sales to any and all persons who desired
to purchase, excepting to minors, and
/ persons IN the habit of becoming intOX-
icated. No kegs or cases sold were
/ broken or opened on the premises when
/ solo h11f IL how 1gv,r,v-oI Prom, no
/ building in the same condition in which
they were shipped by the company from
/ the state of Illinois. The evidence
showed that the agent for the company
! delivered the beer sold to the purchasers
in the city in wagons or otherwise, and
/ that sales were made to any person,
/ above age who paid the money for it.
/ The building in which the beer was sold
/ was fitted up for the purpose of carrying
/ on the business and had been
used by the company in that way since
! the year 1884. The defendant was a con-
stable and the beer in controversy was
seized by him by virtue of a search war
/ rant issued by a justice of the peace upon
the ground that the beer was kept for
sale in violation of the laws of the state.
The trial court found as a fact that the
beer was kept for sale by the company
for the purpose of being sold in violation
| OF the laws Of Iowa.
The supreme court of Iowa held that
the prohibitory law of that state con-
ferred ample authority upon constables
to seize beer in original packages, if they
We're being sold in violation of the pro-
hibitory law of the state, and that court
also held the prohibitory law of Iowa to
be constitutional
The Topeka Capitals adverse opinion
occupies a column and a half, but it
don't reach as far as that Of the supreme
court, we suspect.
The Capital not content with its own
opinion, interviews, as usual, Bradford,
the ex-state attorney who took snch an
interest in saddling Wichita with a po-
lice commission at time when the law
did not make it mandatory, also Of
his successor. Kellogg. together
with that of Judge Webb of Chief JUS
tice Horton, Judge Humphrey, General
A. B. Campbell, the former state Prohi- |
bition lecturer, d. c. Lockwood and
others. Judge Horton declined to ven /
ture an opinion. Judge Humphrey saws
that the decision means that beer. etc. !
can be shipped into Kansas and sold in /
original packages, although the court /.
failed to define an original package. He /
further states that after the importer has /
sold it that it becomes subject to the /
laws of the state. Lockwood saws that /
the decision upsets the prohibitory law /
Of the state As far as original packages !
are concerned, and that Intoxicating
liquors may be imported from one state /
to another and sold III original packages /
without violating any law of this !
state Bradford says that the /
opinion does not interfere with the en-
forcement of the prohibitOry law. Judge .
Webb says with an IF but after all. I
practically. that the supreme court has
made decision against all well settled
rules of law as previously declared.
General \. b. Campbelrs opinion does
not go as the action Of the supreme
court 50 much as that IL VIII result in
arousing the whole nation in a demand
for a congressional law enforcing pro-
hibition in the few states which have tied
themselves up with its provisions. He
thinks that the minority decision Is of
more Importance than the majority de-
cisjon.
And 50 they go No two of them
agree, entirely. They are something like
the supreme court. itself. divided and
somewhat mixed, or like the prohibition
law of Kansas, on the other hand,
mighty uncertain. The EAGLES advice
10 the authorities of every CITY in Kan
sas, where joints exist and where liquors
are sold, would be 10 make such dealers
put up a good round sum monthly in
advance. or otherwise close them out
by the police force. until such time as the
question Is definitely settled. We don't
believe that any jointiSt or other liquor
dealer can 90 on selling under that de
ciSion in defiance. of any regulation that
a municipality might adopt. Cities can
force the payment of fines for selling liq-
uors or otherwise shut up the places of
the would-be vendors until the question
Is settled. In other words. we care not
what lawyers and newspapers may say
10 the contrary. we are satisfied that aay
city administration can control
the liquor traffic until such time as thu
matter can he Judicially or otherwise le-
gally settled
Kansas corn i gong up. TO be sure, but
not by the due route. this time.