=’ 
1900. ] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 519 
From the foregoing facts the court finds the following conclu- 
sions : 
“ That plaintiffs are the sole and unqualified owners of the property, and 
entitled to the possession of the same and judgment for one dollar 
damages for their detention and costs of suit. That so much of chap. 
vi, tit. 1, Code 1873, and the amendments thereto, as prohibits such 
sales by plaintiffs as were made by them is unconstitutional, being in 
contravention of section 8, art. i, of the constitution of the United 
States.” 
The judgment on this finding was reversed by the state Supreme 
Court, and judgment rendered against the plaintiffs on their re- 
plevin bond for the value of the beer. 
The Iowa laws have been somewhat described in the account of 
the cases of Bowman vs. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. and Kidd ws. Pear- 
son. No one in person or by agent might manufacture or sell 
intoxicants except for medicinal, mechanical, sacramental or culi- 
nary purposes, and all liquors intended for other purposes and ves- 
sels containing it are declared a nuisance and directed to be seized 
and destroyed. 
The Supreme Court, in its opinion by Chief Justice Fuller, over- 
rules the License cases on the ground that Chief Justice Taney did 
not sufficiently distinguish between 
“‘the exercise of power over commerce with foreign nations and 
among the states and the exercise of power over purely local commerce 
and local concerns.”’ 
He relies on the opinion in Bowman vs. Railway Company. That 
case held that intoxicating liquors could lawfully come in despite 
any legislation of the state. Applying Brown vs. Maryland, he 
thinks the right to import involves the right to sell, and so holds 
the forbidding of the sale unconstitutional. 
The police power, in its own admitted field, where, as Judge 
Miller says, 
1“the legislature has the right to call on all powers of the court at 
common law or in chancery for the suppression of this objectionable 
traffic,” 
had now come in collision with the ‘‘commercial power,’’ and 
1 Kilenbecker vs. Dist. Court, 734 U. S., 31. 
PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXXIX. 163. HH. PRINTED OCT. 26, 1900. 
