Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-04-24
SOLICITING LIQUOR ORDERS
IS PROHIBITED BY Law
Decision in South Dakota Case Fully Uph0lds the Validity
Of Senator Pefce's Measure Passed by the
North pakOta Legislature
Review Of South Dakota Case and Quotations From the
Decision Of the Supreme Court Of That State
UphOlding Similar Statute

From this decision of the supreme
court of South Dakota an appeal was
taken to the supreme court Of the
United States at Washington That
tribunal affirms the judgment of
South Dakota and in its opinion dis
cusses a parallel case, in which it
was held that it was within the
power of state to prohibit or regu-
late the soliciting of insurance with
in its borders, though the proposal
was accepted and policy issued in an
other state. The court concurs in
the decision Sof the Massachu
supreme court, which says in one
paragraph: While the legislature
cannot impair the freedom of McKie
to elect with Wnom he will contract,
it can prevent the foreign insurers
from sheltering themselves under his
freedom in order to solicit contracts
which otherwise he would not have
thought of making. Itsmay prohibit
not only agents of the Insurers, but
also brokers, from soliciting or in
termeddnng in such insurance, and
for the same reasons. =
Applying this to the liquor case the
federal court says: 81 .s,.-t
The ruling thus made is pafticu-
larry pertinent to the subject Of in
toxIcating liquors and the power Of
the state in respect thereto. AS We
have seen, the right Of the state to
prohibit the sale Of liquor within
their respective jurisdictions in and
by virtue Of the regulation Of com
merce embodied in the Wilson act is
absolutely applicable to liquor ship
ped from one state to another, after
delivery, and before the sale in the
original package. It follows that
the authority of the states, SO far as
, the sale of liquor within their borders
is concerned is just as complete as
| their right to regulate within their
Jurisdiction the making Of contracts
OF insurance. It hence must be- that.
| the authority of the states to forbid
agentssof nonresident liquor dealers
from coming within their borders to-
solicit contracts for the purchase of
Intoxicating liquors which otherwise
the citizens of the state would not
have thought Of making" must be as
complete and effective as IS such
authority in relation to contracts Of
Insurance, especially in view of the
conceptions of public order and we'll
being which it may be assumed lie
at the foundation Of regulations con-
corning the traffic in liquor
There would not seem to a lay
man very much difference between
forbidding the soliciting Of sales Of
liquor without a license, in state
granting license, and forbidding the
soliciting of sales for liquors in
/ states making the sale Of liquor UNI
lawful. Senator Pierce's bill was
passed before the federal supreme
court announced their decision and
1t may be that we have a law on our
statute books, effective July first,
that will make 1t more than unpleas-
ant for the Minnesota citizens who
1 solicit from place to place in our
j state, orders for beer, whiskey, etc.
LAWYERS may find a difference in
the two propositions, but the prin-
ciples at first thought would seem to
be the same The South Dakota
case may be found by interested per-
sons in the Northwestern Reporter,
II Vol. 104, page 537.