The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-11-10
Friday, Noqember 10 1905
MIR. YERKEs' &C. O. D." ORDER.

Since writing the article for yesFr-l
missioner of Internal Revenue Yerkes|
that wholesale dealers in liquors shouldl
pay license tax at tine IJace of delivery
of goods shipped &c. 0. D." to pur7I
chasers our attention has been called
to Il decision Of the supreme court oil
the United States on this. subject
which.to a !ayman, would seem to over
rule the decision of the commissioner
Of internal revenu 1t is true the lat
ter's order was based on the %interIalI
revenue law and that of the federal
supreme court On the law and the con-
stitutioEal provision which preclude
state interference with interstate conf
merce;' but both, it seems to us, rest on
the question as to where is the place
of sale Of the goods shipped under the
circumstances set forth in the commits
~sioner'3 order.
The case referred to is set out in The
North Carolina Law Journal for March,
1908. The case is entitled THE Amer
lean Express Company against the
State OF Iowa" This was a writ of err
rOr from the state supreme court OF
Iowa which latter court upheld a sci
cure under state laws of Intoxicating
liquors shipped &c. o. D." into Iowa, a
prohibition stale, from the state OF
Illinois. 1t vas held in this case by
the federal supreme court, the decision
being made last January, that intoxi-
eating liquors shipped &c. o. D." from
one STATE into another cannot be sub
ject to seizure under the laws of the
latter state, while in the hands of the
express company, without infringing on
the m cause of the federal con-
stitution.
Justice White. delivering the opln-
ion of the cause, said:
Beyond possible question the CON
tract to sell and ship was completed
in Illinois.
Now if the contract to sell and 20
ship was made ct a point where the
seller he'd already secured a license to
conduct such q business we do nOc see
how he could be forced to pay a sec
ond sellers tax ut another point which
was simply the destination of the
goods. If in this case the contrac. to
sell and ship was completed in Illinois
on Gov. oc ror,nlc ctoto ir{orfororoa
with the goods in another state why
was it not good FOR all purposes? The
fact that the delivery of the goods was
not to be made until the express com
pany had received the purchase price
cannot make the place of delivery the
place Cf sale; for suppose the goods
had been shipped direct to the purchas-
er without a &c. o. D." restriction; had
they been sold on credit the shipper
would have had the right to demand
stoppage" in transitu. The fact that he
had that common law right would not
have made the sale incomplete until
there was actual delivery. AS we see
II LAX SooC upOh IlS NuCotAO3I a
to where the contract of sale is made.
ID Id is made at the point of shipment,
which the federal supreme court says
is the fact, AMI that therefore the
goods cannot be seized in another
state while in he hands of the express
company, how can the government say
<bo% fIa la1:ror- r,olyoC n coa0nA ~Iooo
of sale for the purpose Of taxation:
Justice White, in his opinion cites
two cases from this state in which the
federal supreme court had made SINH
lar decisions. One was the Greensboro
portrait case, and the other the sew
ing machine case. In the former q res
ident Of Greenboro ordered certain pic
lures and picture frames from a Chi
cago house. These were sent to the
company's agent in Greensboro who
put the pictures and frames together.
and delivered them to the purchaser
The court held that the city of Greens
boro could not collect tax. The sew
ing machine case was of similar ma
ture. The machine was ordered from
Il Chicago house. the order accepted
there and the machine shipped. The
state, the court said, could not levy a
tax because these were interstate trans
actions, the contracts of purchase being
made ard completed in n state and
the goods shipped to purchasers in
another. Mr.. Justice White quotes the
court as sayinS in the picture frame
case:
It would seem evident that if the
vendors had sent the articles by an
o company which should collect
on delivery sue 2 mode of delivery
would not have subjected the transac-