In the case of Chanute City v. Trader, the Supreme Court of Kansas was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a local business owner, Trader, who argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process and equal protection under the law. The court found that the ordinance was constitutional, as it was a reasonable exercise of the city’s police power. The court noted that the ordinance was not overly restrictive, as it did not prohibit the sale of alcohol in the entire city, but only within certain areas. Furthermore, the court found that the ordinance was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was based on the city’s legitimate interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Ultimately, the court held that the ordinance was constitutional and that Trader’s rights had not been violated. The court also noted that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city’s police power and that it was not overly restrictive or arbitrary.

In the case of Chanute City v. Trader, Justice Brewer delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider all relevant facts and evidence when making their decision. He noted that while it was true that there were some inconsistencies between the city's charter and state law, these discrepancies did not necessarily mean that the city could not enforce its own laws or regulations. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were conflicts between local ordinances and state statutes, this should be resolved by allowing both parties to present their arguments before a court of competent jurisdiction rather than simply ruling in favor of one side without considering all available evidence. Ultimately, Justice Brewer concluded his dissent by noting that since no party had been prejudiced as a result of any alleged conflict between local ordinances and state statutes at issue in this case, it would have been more appropriate for the Court to remand back to lower courts for further consideration instead of issuing an immediate judgment on behalf of either party.