export; and this is the sole question to be determined by the supreme court upon the appeal. This answers the first inquiry in your letter, as to what is involved in the case. Your next question is whether or not my employment in this case is consistent with my past record; and whether or not it is calculated to impair my influence and usefulness for the cause of prohibition in the future. I was one of the committee appointed by the State Temperance Alliance to prepare a bill to be presented to the legislature for its consideration, in 1884, that should carry out the will of the people of Iowa, as expressed in the amendment to the constitution, which amendment the supreme court of the state had then decided was not operative, by reason of the failure of the eighteenth general assembly to properly enter the same upon their journals. As early as the 31st of May, 1881, I prepared and delivered before the Methodist state convention that was held in Des Moines at that date an address on the legal phase of the prohibitory amendment. This address was afterwards printed in pamphlet form by the _Prohibitionist_, and was circulated during the amendment campaign as a campaign document, and seemed to meet with the views of the friends of prohibition at that time. In that address I took occasion to discuss the meaning and scope of the proposed amendment, and in it occurs the following passage, defining my view of the legislation that would be required by that amendment, if adopted. I quote: We have, in regard to spirituous liquors, laws upon our statute books designed to prohibit their manufacture or sale, except for medicinal, mechanical, culinary and sacramental purposes. For these lawful purposes certain persons are authorized to sell. They must obtain a permit, give bonds, keep books, etc., and are subject to the supervision and control of the authorities. The manufacturer could be required to sell only to persons thus authorized to sell for lawful purposes; if sold _within the state_, otherwise than as permitted by the statute, the act could be punished by fine or confiscation. May 12, 1881, I attended a meeting of the State Bar Association of Iowa, the proceedings of which are reported in the Des Moines _Register_ of May 13, 1881. That meeting discussed the meaning and interpretation of the proposed prohibitory amendment to the constitution. Mr. Cummins, an attorney of this city, offered a resolution at that meeting as follows: Resolved, That the proposed amendment prohibits the manufacture of intoxicating liquors within the state for sale as a beverage without the state. The _Register's_ report says that "Judge Nourse arose and stated that Iowa had no control over the liquor after it left the state."