The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-14

Lawyers and lower courts in the State now have an elucidation of that section of the new revenue code of Alabama as put Into effect by the iast Legislature in regard to licensing the solicitors of establishments selling pic lures and picture frames.
 The Alabama Supreme Court yester- day in the appeal of the case of Alfred Dozier vs. State of Alabama, from the Montgomery City Court. made what is regarded as an important ruling on the question of what constitutes inter- state and what intrastate commerce when it comes to taking orders for por- traits and frames for the same. The State imposes license of S25 per arl- mum on all solicitors in every county who take orders for portraits or for picture frames, one or both, and this provision of the new revenue code has caused more different interpretations in various counties of the State. per- haps, than any other enactment of the last Legislature with reference to li- censes.
 The case referred to was tried in the Montgomery City Court on an agreed statement of facts. Dozier represent ed a picture house located in Chicago and had an office in Montgomery. He refused to pay his license for soliciting orders for portraits and frames, alieg-
 
 and therefore beyond the Jurisdiction of the States licensing power. The lower court did not agree with the con- tention of the defendant. who was duly convicted of doing business without a license.
 The Supreme Court affirmed the judg- fnent of the Montgomery City Court, holding by close shade of reasoning that the taking of orders for pictures In the case on trial was interstate com merce, but that the placing of the pie ture frames as practiced in the neth- ods of the defendant and his house was contract made wholly within the state and was. therefore. intrastate in character.
 Courts Decision,
 Tt Is conceded says Associate Jus tice N. D. Denson. that the defendant cannot be convicted for delivering the pictures because the taking of the ore ders therefor and the delivery in pur- suance or the order--contracts in the manner shown by the statement of xaet& is interstate commerce. But the sns1stence of the State is that the sale Of the frames for the pictures was made and completed in Alabama by the agent after they came into the State ana while in possession of the agent end. therefore. that the transactions ir, respect to the frames were not inter @So@S pdb 4upraatdLe commerce and that the conviction iouId be Sustained under the latter alternative in the corn- plaint.
 The precise question presented by this fnsistence has never been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the IJni- ted States so far as we are advised.
 Tt seems to us clear of doubt that no sale was made by the soliciting agent. of the frame. The purchaser ia not bound by the terms of either of the exhibits to accept and pay for frame. and the extent of the meaning of the two is that an opportunity will be af- xorded the purchaser, at the time the portrait is delivered. to purchase d suitable frame;; so that the minds of seller and purchaser do not concur ir the consummation of a sale-contract. in respect to the frame until the deliyer- ing agent has exhibited the frame. with it's price. and the purchaser accepted 1t at the price, It is at that time that the sale Is consummated and not be- fere.r
 This decision will apply very Eener- ally to quite a number of prosecutions now pending in various counties of the state ad&laa