The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-08-14
Leftess to The Editos
SHIPMENTS FROM ONE X . ANnTBER.

STATE TO ANOTHER. Editor The Advertiser:
 Supreme Court of the United States and the debates in Congress, no one should attempt to mislead the Leg stature or the public as to the power key from one State to another, for a mans personal use. Prior to what fs known as the Wilson act. an article of commerce shipped from one State Into original package. was not subject to state power at all. The State could neither tax 1t nor prevent It's sale In the original package. The result was. stitution. that a man who lived in prohibition State could purchase beer and whiskey from another State, and on arrival. resell the original package. though such . sale resultedln the sell ing of something the laws of the State forbid to be sold. and deemed delete- rious 10 the morals or welfare Of its people The wilcon Act was passed to prevent a citizen in a prohibition state from receiving liquor from an- other State for his own use, or to give the State any power to interfere with das, dne original package. or prevent its ys; Iowa, ITO U. S., page 413. the court said of the Wilson act: Tt was not in- tended to. and did not cause the power ,ns s.sts to ssch tS an Int chandise was in transit under such shipment and until its arrival at the point Of destination and delivery there to the consignee. Of course. this con ciusion renders 1t unnecessary to de- eide whether if an act of Congress had submitted the right to make interstate commerce shipments to State control, It would be repugnant to the Consti-
 In American Express Co. vs. Iowa, l9s U. S., 133. all the earlier cases are reviewed. The court said: .'The right of the parties thereto to make . contract, valid in the State where made, for the sale and purchase of merchandise. and in so doing to fix the time when and the condition on which oompissed o title shall pass. is beyond question whether the property in a O. Q. D. shipment Is at the risk of the buyer or seller and when the sale fs completed. . package of intoxicating in one state to be carried to another State, and there are delivered to the consignee c. O. D. for price of the package and the expressage. is inter- state commerce and is under the pro- lection of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, and cannot, prior to its actual delivery to the consignee. be seized under prohibitory iduor laws Of the State."
 Company sNo, D i7o U. s.. Iss. the Supreme Court again held "the right to send liquors from one State to an- other and the act of sending the same is interstate commerce. the regulation whereof has been committed by the Constitution of the United States to Congress, and a State law which denies such right. or substantially inter feres with or hampers the same, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States" It further held in that case. such power to ship mer- chandise from one State into another carries with 1t as an incident the right to receive the goods and to sell them In the original package. any State reg ulation to the contrary, notwithstand- ing; that is to say, the goods received by interstate commerce remains un- der the shelter of the interstate com merce clause of the Constitution until by a sale in the original package 1t then became mingled with the general mass of property In the State. but since the passage of the act of August 6, 1890, (the Wilson Act) while re- ceiver of intoxicating liquors sent from one State to another has the constitu- tional right to receive them for his own use without regard to the State laws to the contrary, he can neither exercise nor assert the right to sell them in the original package in de- fance of State law"