The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-02
Judge Jones Restrai1s
 Police In Birmingham

freight yards to the consignee's resi- dence was a violation of the prohibi- ton laws of the state. and also be- cause the local transfer man was not doing interstate commerce.
 Judge Feagin had decided that the points were well taken. holding that tho protection of the interstate com- merce commission extended only to the railroad shipment, and was completed on the delivery of the goods to the freight depot or yards of the railroad company. The position was also taken that neither the buyer nor the seller had right to contract with trans fer company for the delivery of the goods to the residence of the buyer. It was. however. held that the buyer himself might come to the freight yards with the proper bill of laifng. and with a wheel-barrow or carriage which he himself owned. might move the shipment to his own residence.
 MT. Percy claimed that the right of the seller or the buyer to use the usual or customary transfer agent for the delivery of the shipment from the ears to the residence in completing the con- tract was right guaranteed under the constitution of the United States.
 Mir. Hamill then took up the discus sion. The attorney for the prohibi- ton element claimed that under the
 
 not engaged in interstate business. had not the right to make contract to deliver shipments of an out of state company contrary to the laws of the state. Mir. Hamiil claimed that the transfer company was purely local concern. and could be restrained and controlled in its acts by such fegula- tions as the local government cared to impose under the law. He also claimed that the transfer company had not the right to make such a contract with either the shipper or the buyer. MT. Hamili admitted that the buy CT could take his own conveyance and complete the shipment to his resi- dence. but denied all right to either party to the original contract to touch the beer after its delivery by the rail- road In the yards or depot of the com pany.
 Judge Jones then entered the discuss sion. He stated to the attorneys that the effect of the Wilson Act was mere ly that packages could not be passed on in a prohibition territory. The Act. however. did not deny the right of a brewer to sell his goods in sealed package and deliver that sealed pack age to buyer. It did however. deny the right of the buyer to sell that package to some one else.
 Now as to the right of the transfer
 
 beer from the freight car and deliver it to the house of the buyer, Judge Jones decided with Mir. Percy in that the company did have such a right.
 Suppose" said Judge Jones, "that the Lemp Brewing Company had a sys- tenn of delivery wagons in Birmingham. Now suppose that a consignment of a keg of beer was delivered in the freight yards at Birmingham for a certain John Smith. Would not the local wagons of the company have the right to trans- fer that beer from the cars to the res- idence of the buyer7 And yet the wag- ons are under the control of local jurisdiction.
 MT. Hamiii thought they would not have such a right.
 By reference to several eases recent ly decided in North Carolina. Iowa. and West Virginia, 1t was shown that the company did have such a right.
 Why. then, has the Lemp Brewing Company or the buyer to whom the shipment of beer is consigned. the right to contract with any transfer company for the completion of the interstate commerce shipment7" said Judge