The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-02

Jones. T don't see. Mir. Hamiil. why Mir. Percy shouldn't be granted his re- straining order or his injunction"
 Argument followed by Mir. Hamiil to no avail. The order was issued. Just before its issuance, however, MT. Hamiu lowed to arrest the drivers as fast as they made their deliveries.
 Certainly not" said Judge Jones. Such arrests would be a great burden upon interstate commerce, and there fore. under no conditions. would be ai- lowed"
 By agreement, the temporary re- straining order will come up for argu- ment on October 15.
 There is nothing new in Judge Jones' decision restraining officers from inter fering with the use of a dray line to carry unbroken. original packages from the depot to the residence of the con- signee when the contract for the ship ment of beer was made in another State What Is known as the Wilson Act. as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States. does not prevent the de- livery of liquor to the consignee here from other States, where liquor Is rec ognfzed as an article of commerce. Be- fore the Wilson Law was passed. liquor could be shipped from another State. If the sale was lawful in that State. lntQ ~ 0t6AG WhoE0 StiO SAto VA tt&@|s was prohibited, and so long as it re- mained in unbrolren packages. the own CT could sell the unbroken package in the prohibition State. The Wilson Act changed the former law only to this extent that as State could prohibit the sale of liquor. the original con- signee could no longer sell. even in un- broken packages. but could import H. quor for his own use from another State, and that the State law could not operate on such unbroken or original package, until it had been actually de- lfyersd to the consignee. and that any attempt to stop 1t at any stage or the transporation was an interference with interstate commerce. This has been which is American Express Company V. Iowa, les U. S.. 14a. Judge Jones sim ply held that as the shipment in an un- broken package was legal, that the sei- Ter had the right to use one or more instrumentaiities to complete the de- livery of 1t to the consignee and that to stop the beer at the depot before the article of commerce had been delivered to the consigned, was an interference with the article of commerce Tn tram sit. and forbidden by the Constitution and Laws, and that 6 contract in an- other State for delivery of liquor here could use any number of instrumentaii- ties to convey the liquor to the con.
 The case is of general importance throughout and the order Is punhsneo in full. .. e. In the United States Circuit Court Tor
 tha Southern Division of the North
 ern District of Alabama William J.
 Lemp Brewing Company, Complain,
 ant vG George H. Bodeker anu
 others. Defendants.
 This cause coming on to be heard on complainant's application for tenn porary restraining order, and counse, for defendants being present and saio application having been argued oy both sides and duly considered by me, and being of opinion that the acts set forth in said bill as having been done. and being threatened by the police officers of the City of Birming- ham. if true constitute an unwar- rantable interfereneey with interstate commerce; 1t is. therefore. ordered adjudged and decreed that pending the further hearing of this cause. the defendants and each of them and the police officers of the City of BirminK- ham. acting under the control and di- rection of the defendant be and here- by they are restrained and enjoined from in any wise interfering with the delivery of casks or other original packages of beer from railroad cars or railroad warehouses in the City of Birmingham. to the residences or other addresses of the respective pur- chasers or consignees in or in tho