The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-12-22

it's limits. which have not been min gied with the common mass of property there.n, if. in it's judgment. the end to be secured justified and requires such action" (p. 123); . ..fn the ab- sence of Congressional permission to do so, the State had nolpower to inter- fere by seizure or any other action in prohibiting of the sale by the foreign or nonresident importer" Opp. 1924 125). The court expressly held in this case that interstate Transportation did not end. and the commerce clause ap- piled until the liquor was mingled in the common mass of property in the State," saying. Under our decision in Bowman V. Chicago Railway Company, supra. they had the right to import this beer into that State, and in the view which we have expressed they had the right to sell 1t, by which act alone it would become mingled with the common mass of property within the State" (p. i24).
 Accordingly. to remove the effect of this decision and in order to enable the State to enforce their own liquor or anti-liquor laws. Congress passed what approved Ausust g. 1890. That act
 That all fermented, distilled. or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Terri- tory or remaining therein for use. con- sumption. sale or storage therein. shall. upon arrived in such State or Territory. of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers. to the same extent, and in the same manner. as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State, or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original pack ages or otherwise A
 Clayton Cites DecIsions.
 In the case of In re Rahrer GAO U. S.. 545) the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States held that this act was con- stitutional and valid. and conferred upon. the States the powers enumerated therein. t,r.
 But in the case of Rhodes vs. Iowa GEO U. S., 415). a question arising un- der this act again came before the Su- preme Court, and, in defining the scope and meaning of the act, the court held that under it's provisions liquors trans ported from one State into another re- mained under the protection of the in- terstate commerce clause above quoted until they were delivered to the con- signee and that the State law was in- | operative to reach them until they were delivered by the common carrier | to the person to whom they were con , signed. The effect of this decision was i practically to nullify tho act of 1890 /, so far as the transportation and de- I livery of intoxicating liquors within 1 the State was concerned. Under the | law, as thus construed, dealers in in- | toxicating liquors located in some of l the States sent out their soliciting agents and established agencies ir other States. Swho travelled over and | T I sales and took orders for intoxicating liquors to be shipped in by the prin- cipal, consigned to the subscribers | sometimes to be sent to them direct l and in other cases to be sent to them sin care of the soliciting agent | By this method regular business oi dealing in intoxicating liquors by the | foreign dealer has been kept up ir many of the States with impunity Under this system the States are en. tirely powerless either to prohibit l such sales or to exercise any control l or regulation over them. They cannot even impose a license or any restric- tions whatever on the business carried on in this manner.
 Hepbrrn-Dolliver Ell.
 l To meet this situation the so-called | Hepburn-Dolliver bill was introduced l into the Fifty-Seventh Congress. re. ported this measure favorably from | the House Committee on the Judiciary 1 on Jan. 2s, 1908. H. R. Report No. 3s77 Fifty Seventh Congress 2nd Session) The purpose of this bila was to subject intoxicating liquors imported iron
 one State into another to the jurisdic ton of the laws of the State into
 which they were imported on arriva
 within the boundaries of such State and provided that such liquors "shal
 not be exempt therefrom by reason oi such liquors or liquids being introduced | therein in original packages or other. l wise." This bill was called up in tho House of Representatives on the 27tf day of January 1903, and the explana
 tion and defense of the bill on tho floor of the HouseNwas accorded to m, by MT. Jenkins, the chairman of tn, Judiciary Committee. (See Congress
 sional Record, vol. 36 pt. ?. pl 1927 Fifty Seventh Congress). After a shor1 discussion, which ! opened with a brie | statement. this bill was passed witt practical unanimity. It had the entire
 support of the Representatives from