476 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
tions as to the effect of prohibitory laws upon property already in 
existence. In case of * Beer Co. vs. Massachusetts the plaintiff did 
not attempt to change the ruling in the Iowa case, but only to dis- 
tinguish from it. The plaintiff had been chartered as a brewing 
company in 1828 by the state of Massachusetts. That state had 
passed a prohibitory liquor law substantially like the one examined 
in the lowa case. The Beer Company claimed that the state had 
no power to practically destroy its franchise by forbidding abso- 
lutely the sale of its products in Massachusetts. 
It was held, in the first place, that the state of Massachusetts 
having reserved the right to change or repeal the company’s char- 
ter, the exercise of that right even to the extent of forbidding the 
sale of the company’s products was no violation or impairment of 
the obligation of any contract. It was further held that such 
reservation was unnecessary. On the authority of Boyd ws. Ala- 
bama, 9g U. S., 645, it was declared that forbidding the sale of 
intoxicating liquors was such a police act as no legislature could sell 
or bargain away the right to do, and that such a law does not in 
itself in the case under consideration violate any provision of the 
constitution of the United States, neither fourteenth amendment 
nor commerce clause. Evidently appropriate legislative action as 
to the use of property is not a taking. 
SOW (OB yn 253 
