The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-02
The Whole State has Anti
jug Law.
Continued from First Page)

Field uses the following language: AT
the present date, the title constitutes
TART OF the act, but it is still construed
as only formal part; it cannot be used
to extend or TO restrain any positive pro-
visions in the body OF the act. The ian
guage OF Section is that the place
where delivery OF any spirituous, malt,
yirCus, termentcd or other intoxicating
liquors Is made in the STATE OF NORTH
ICAROLlNA shall be construed and held
TO be the place of sale thereof = =.
This provision is positive in It's character,
and its operation cannot be restrained Dy
iany reference to the title of the chap
| ter. In the sections of chapter $40 other
| tran sections l and 2, there is no reter-
ence to the place in which the act is to
be operative, and hence by reference to
the title they are to be applied only to
the four counties therein named. Sec
ton ! is specifically made. operative III
the counties therein named, and is to
take effect at a different date, and sec
ton IS made operative IS TO the sale
OF any spirituous or intoxicating liquors
anywhere in the State, and as to them
the title cannot be used to restrict or eX-
| tend the meaning of the explicit, clear
ard unambiguous language used
50. 1t is further AFFECTED that if the
statute has this meaning 1T is unconsu-
tutional, but we are not pointed tc any
section Of the Constitution which torbldS
the laW-making power TO designate the
place of sale when the goods are shipped
| by the vendor to the vendee by COM
mon carrier Or other agency. 1t is true
the courts have held that the place OF
sale is where the goods are delivered to
ths carrier, the latter being the agent OF
the vendee, thus making the constructive
delivery, instead of the place OF actual
receipt of the goods by the purchaser,
the place of sale. This rule is of com
paratively modern origin, and, at first,
was held to apply only when the yendee
designated the carrier by whom the goods
were to be shipped Dawes vs. Peck,
s D. and z. 33S. 1t has not been uni
forTnly held and is subject to many eX-
ceptions, l Beachcourt, Section 563, :
Kent Com. 400, as the right of stoppage
in transitu, and other exceptions. 1t is
merely a rule OF judicial construction,
which was made in the absence OF legis
Ilation, and is not protected by any con-
stitutional provision from legislative pow
er to change it. Especially can the Leg
Iislature change such rule in the exercise
eating liquors, when, as here, it can
be readily seen that with the multiplied
ton of common carriers and the speed
and ease with which intoxicating liquors
can be shipped it would be a vain thing
to prohibit the sale Of liquor in any
designated territory, if vendors, a short
distance off, can at will fill orders conf
ing from within the prohibited territory
upor the judicial fiction tina, the sale IS
complete upon delivery to the carrier,
who is construed as the agent OF the
verdee. Whether it may or may not re-
quire an Act of Congress to make a SINH
lar change as to liquor shipped into pro
hibitod territory from points outside the
State in no wise affects the power of the
State to so provide when the shipment
is from another point in the State. Rhodes
vs.. Iowa 40 Z. S. 402; O'Neill vs.. Yer
mont LA Y. S. 323, as construed in Rail-
read VS.. Simmons, (Dec. 1909.
Where one, upon one side of-the line
OF political division, as a State or coun-
| ty, shoots across the line and kills a
person on the other side, the courts have
hello that the act is committed where
| the shot is delivered by striking the body
of the victim. State VS.. Hail. ia n. c.
900, CT, if ne commit false pretense by a
| letter delivered in another State, the
oftense is committd in the State in which
the letter is delivered In re Sultan, 115
n. G. at page 90. statute modifying
! the latter rule was sustained in STATE
vs.. Caldwell, 115 N. C. at page 500 and
in Com. vs. McLoon 101 Mass. 1, in which
Cray, j., said that the statute rested upon
the general power OF the Legislature to
dc clare any wilful or negligent act,
which causes an injury to persons or
property in it's territory, to be q crime.
! The General Assembly has authorized the
people of Durham to hold an election by
virtue OF which it is deemed injurious to
sell intoxicating liquors in the limits Of
Durham, and by virtue of such exercise
1 of the police power, and to make it Ell
| fectivc, it IS further enacted that the sele
! Shall be deemed made in Durham Cor
elsewhere in this -State) upon the delivery
there of the injurious article to the buy
err. Just as in the case CT shot fred
across the line, or a letter or poison 50
sent by the mail or other agency.
st was suggested on the argument,
though the point is not made i'll the rec
ord, that the statute contravenes the
sixth amendment TO the United States
Constitution, which provides that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall
be tried by jury of the State and dis
tlict where the crime shall have been
committed But aside from the tact that
the law has construed the crime to be
committed in Durham where the forbid
den article was actually delivered, IN
| stead of at Roxboro where 1t was only
constructively delivered, it is well known
that the first ten amendments were ali
passed as restrictions upon the the red
| eral Government and courts, and as a
concession to States which reluctantly
and hesitatinglyt had entered INTO me
Union upon a pledge that such amend
ments should be submitted. That these
amendments are restrictions upon the
Federal government and rot upon the
States, has been uniformly held IN the
United States Supreme Court state vs.
Caldwell, lis n. c. at page 80S and cases
there cited: Fox vs. Ohio, as U. S. 4lo;
Cook VS.. L. s. 1873 U. S. 49, barron VS.
BALTIC. 50 T. s. 234; Spies VS. III. lz3 =.
S. 131, and there are numerous others
Twitchell VS.. Com, "A Z. 5 5zl uck-
-