Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1906-01-03
SHIPMENTS OF. LIQUOR
Assistant Attorney General De-
clares Where the Liability of the
Common Carrier Terminates.

In view of the fact that so many
counties have voted out the d!spensary
and the "drummers" have come in
soliciting orders for whiskey to be
shipped into the State, the following
opinion written by the assistant at
s torney general under date of Dec. 10,
1905, will be of interest:
Columbia, S. c., Dee. 10, 1905.
VIM. M. Hamer, Esq,
Dillon, S. c..
Der Sir: Yours of December 18th
has been received. You are right in
the idea you seem to intimate, it is
only when required by. the State Off
GERS that it is the duty of the attor-
ney general to consult and advise with
them on questions Of law relating to
their official business.
The opinion of mine to which you
refer must have been one in which !
briefly stated what had been decided
by the supreme court In these two
cases, the State VS.. Chastain, 49 S. C.
172, April 9th, 1896, holding that I'M
der the dispensary law it is a criminal
offense to store and keep in possession
alcoholic liquors for personal use
without having fixed on the vessel con-
tanning it labels obtained from the
State commissioner. On this question,
>the members of the supreme court
were equally divided. The later case
of the State VS.. McGee, 55 S. C. PAT,
was decided without dissent June 3,
1899, holding that liquor purchased
without the State for personal use is
not contraband, simply because the
purchaser does not procure and attach
to it from the State chemist certif-
cate of purity, as provided in the dis
pensary law. In an opinion given by
Hon. U. 4. Gunter, Jr., now attorney
general, on March 18th, 1900, when he
was assistant attorney general, he
says: 1t has been clearly settled by
a long line of decisions of the United
States court beginning with Bowmca 4
Z VS.. Railway company, 125 q. S. 465,
to Vance VS.. Vandercock, 170sU. S.
43S, reviewed in the decision of our
own court in the State VS.. Holleyman,
81 S. i. 1862, 33 S. E. 367, that no pen
5 atty attaches to the importing Of
liquor into this State forEpersonal use.
1t is also well settled that in ordinary
eonsignments delivery Ito the carrier
is delivery to the consignee. Hence,
when dealer in another state recei-
4 YES an order for liquor from this State
\ at the place Of the consignor, and as
5 such transaction is interstate COM
merce when the liquor is ordered for
personal use no action lies either in
personam or in rem. 80 T. The mere
ordering of the liquor by a person in
this State for his personal use, from
& another State, the purchase price 10
be collected on delivery, does not con-
sstitutes a sale in this State and is not
! In contravention of the laws of the
State in regard to alcoholic liquors. -
In an opinion of Mr.. W. ii. Town
b send, then assistant attorney general,
& Sept. 4, 1906, he says: "The State law
cannot prohibit drummers or statesmen
from soliciting orders in this State for
y the sale of liquor by a non resident in
4 another State, to be shipped into this
State for deliver as such transaction
is purely one of interstate commerce,
over which this State has no control. !"
Z - =