Year: 1878

THE BOSTON BEER C0MPASY'S CASE-THE


RIGHT OF LEGISLATURE 10 PASS SUCH


LAWS MAINTAINED.


WASHINGTON, June 21.-The following
decision has been rendered by the Supreme
Court of the United States:


No., 277.-Ihe Boston Beer Company,
claimant of certain Intoxicating Liquors,
Us. The Comm onoreatth of Massachusetts,
In error to the Supreme Court of MasSa-
chaSettS.-The question raised in this case
is whether the charter OF the plaintiff,
which was granted in 1928, contains any
contract the obligation Of which was i'm
paired by the prohibitory liquor law Of
Massachusetts, passed in 1869, as applied
to the liquor in question IN this suit. 1t
appears that the charter Of the company,
1909, became subject to a reserved power
of the Legislature to make further provis-
ions and regulations for the management OF
the business Of the corporation and for the
government thereof, or wholly to repeal
the act or any part thereof establish.
ing the corporation. This reservation Of
the power was part Of the contract. FJ
can hardly be supposed that the Legislature,
when it reserved such plenarY powers over
the corporations to be organized under the
new act, intended to relinquish all its power
over the corporations organized under or
subject to the provisions OF the former act.
The Legislature OF Massachusetts had re-
served complete power to pass any laW it
saw fit which might affect the powers OF the
plaintiff in error. But there is another
question in the case which, as it seems to us,
is equally decisive. The plaintiff in error
was incorporated for the purpose Of manu-
featuring malt liquors in all their variety"
it is true, and the right to manufacture, I'M
doubtedly, as the plaintiffs counsel con
tends, included the incidental right
to dispose of the liquors manufac-
tured. But, although this right OF capa-
city was thus granted in the most unquali-
fed form, it cannot be construed as confer
ring any greater or more sacred right than
any citizen had to manufacture malt liquor,
nor as exempting the corporation from any
control therein to which a citizen would be
subject, if the interests OF the community
should require it. II the public safety or
the public morals require the discontinue
ance Of any manufacture or traffic, the hand
Of the Legislature cannot be stayed from
providing for its discontinuance by any in
cidental Inconvenience which individuals or
corporations may suffer. All rights are
held subject to the police power of
the State. Wes do not mean to say
that property actually in existence
and in which the right of the owner
has become vested may be taken up for
the public good without compensation.
But we infer that the liquor in this case, as
in the case Of Bartemeyer Us. The State OF
Iowa rs WALL, 129), was not in existence
when the liquor law of Massachusetts, was
passed. Had the plaintiff in error relied
upon the existence Of the property prior to
the law, it behooYed him to show that fact.
But no such fact is shown, and no such
point is taken. The plaintiff. in error boldly
takes the ground that, being corporation,
it has a right by contract to manufacture
and sell beer forever, Notwithstanding
and in spite Of any eXigencies which may
occur in the morals or the health Of
the community requiring such manufac-
ture to cease. We do not so understand
the rights of the plaintiff. The Legislature
had no power to confer any such rights.
Whatever differences OF opinion may exist,
it is said, as to the extent and boundaries
OF the police power Of the State, there is no
doubt that it extends to the protection of
the lives. health, and property Of the citi-
zens, and to the preservation of good order
and the public morals. Nor can the Legis-
lature by any contract diyest itself Of the
power to provide for these objects. At
tirmed. Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the
opinion. r...s,..