The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-09-28

Letting the purchase price either by
bank or an attorney. months after
the transaction was closed, criminal
under its power to regulate Interstate
commerce. because such an act would
not BIO part Of that commerce.
But 1t seems to me the acts OF the
defendant fully meet that require
ment. The statute forbids any per-
son to act "in any manner as the
agent Of the buyer or seller OF any
such liquor for the purpose OF buying
or selling or completing the sale
thereof, saving only In the actual
transportation and delivery OF the
same" Giving effect to the previous
part of the section, this agency must
be done lin connection with the trans
portation.s When the whole language
Is read together, however. 1t clearly
indicates that there may be an agency
In connection with the transportation
Of the liquor. for the purpose of buy-
ing or selling or completing the sale
thereof, which shall not consist in its
actual transportation or delivery. BY
familiar rule Of construction, the
exception proves the existence OF that
from which 1t is excepted.
AS the agent of the seller. II held
the bill of lading, and thereby pre-
vented the contamination OF the trans
portation by the delivery of the goods
until. as agent of the seller, IT received
the purchase price, and then as such
agent delivered the bill Of lading to the
purchaser SO that he could present the
same to the carrier, and thereby COM
plete the sale by obtaining a delivery
Of the liquor.
It was immaterial whether the car
rier collected the purchase price. or a
bank did so. In either case the tran
saction amounted to a sale of the
liquor within the state In violation Of
local law. Regardless Of when the
title passed as a matter of law, what
actually occurred was this: The LIQUOR
dealer by means Of acts done wholly
within the state. first collected the pur-
chase price from the buyer, and then
turned over to him the liquors. There
would be no reason In forbidding car
riers to act as collecting agents, IL 9TH
or familiar agencies were to be left
free to perform the same service. and
accomplish the very evil which all
concede the statute was intended to
remedy. All agree that either form OF
the transaction is within the mischief
OF the statute. The language or the
statute on its face Is clearly broad
enough to cover both forms.
II is conceded that If the acts done
by the defendant had been done by q
carrier, they would have been suffi-
GENTLY connected with the transporta-
ton" to make the act q violation OF the
statute. In view Of the charge of the
indictment that the contract between
the seller of the liquor and the bank
was for the express purpose Of collect
ing the purchase price and delivering
the bill Of lading, so that the purchaser
could present the same to the carrier,
and complete the SALE and that this
arrangement was entered into with fun
knowledge as to the transaction be-
tween the seller and the buyer it is
impossible for me to say that the acts
OF the bank are not as intimately con-
nected with the transportation OF the IL
quors as they would have been fl they
had been done by the carrier. In eth
er case the acts are done after the
transportation Is completed. In my
judgment. therefore, the acts Of the
bank were done Sin connection with
the transportation" in such a way as
to constitute a violation of the sta
tute, IL 1t is possible for any person
other than carrier to commit the for
hidden.
The statute was not primarily aimed
at carriers. but at all acts done wholly
within the state for the purpose OF
completing the sale OF intoxicating IL
quors shipped In Interstate commerce.
At the time the law was framed. the
form of such agency which employed
a bill OF lading with draft attached,
was brought clearly before congress In
the decision of the supreme court which