~ 
508 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
The law also provided that all places where such liquors were 
made, sold, bartered or given away contrary to the law, or where they 
were kept for that purpose, should be deemed common nuisances, 
and when they should be found to be such by any court of competent 
jurisdiction, the proper officer should be directed to abate and close 
them and destroy the liquor and vessels containing it. 
Mugler had erected his brewery in Saline county, Kansas, in 
1877, at a cost of $10,000. It was still worth that sum for that use, 
but worth not more than $2500 for any other purpose. He had 
continued operating it, after the enactment of the law, without a 
permit. He was a citizen of the United States, and had con- 
ducted the same place of business in the same manner ever since 
1877. He appealed to the fourteenth amendment of the federal 
constitution to protect it. 
In the other case, Ziebold & Hagelin’s plant had cost $60,000. 
It had been in operation about as long as Mugler’s. When pro- 
ceeded against as a nuisance under the state law the proprietors 
claimed the protection of the fourth and fourteenth amendments 
of the federal constitution and asked a removal of the case to the 
federal court, which was refused on the ground that the federal court 
had already ruled against the alleged right in Bartelmeyer vs. Iowa 
and Beer Company vs. Massachusetts and Foster vs. Kansas. The 
defendants, however, had the case docketed in the United States 
Circuit Court, and that court retained jurisdiction and refused to. 
remand it, and at the trial dismissed it over the state’s objection. 
The Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Harlan affirmed the 
action of the Kansas State Court and reversed that of the Circuit 
Court, and held the Kansas constitution and the statute to enforce 
it to violate no provision of the federal constitution so far as these 
two cases were concerned. Whether or not the brewers had a right 
to use their plants in making beer for exportation from the state 
was not decided. 
Even Judge Field’s dissenting opinion finds fault only with that 
portion of the law declaring the places a nuisance where the manu- 
facture is carried on without permits, and directing the destruction 
of both the liquors and the containing vessels. He thinks this an 
unconstitutional deprivation of property. ‘The answer of Judge 
Harlan that the law is prospective in its operation and relates only 
to places where the business shall be carried on in defiance of the 
state after its taking effect, seems to dispose of this objection if, as 
