Under the prohibition law in Iowa, it was held that sales of liquor in the original pack ages were prohibited ; State v. Exp. Co., 70 Ia. 271, 30 N. W. 568; but the supreme court held in the case of Leisy v. Hardin that, in the absence of congressional permission, a state had no right to interfere with the sale, by an importer, of liquors imported from another state in original packages, as such an action interfered with the right of con gress to regulate commerce; Letsy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128, followed in Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 214 U. S. 218, 29 Sup. Ct. 633, 53 L. Ed. 972. The decision in Leisy v. lardin induced the passage of the act of August 8, 1890 (the Wilson Bill) ; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 17 Sup. Ct. 265, 41 L. Ed. 632; which pro vides that all fermented, distilled, or intoxi cating liquors transported into any state for use therein, regardless of whether they are in the original packages or not, shall be sub ject to the police laws of such state. This act was held constitutional as a valid exer cise of the police powers vested in congress; In re Rahrer,' 43 Fed. 556, 10 L. R. A. 444; by it congress has declared when imported property shall be subject to state laws, but the states are not authorized to declare when such goods become the subject of their control; In re Spickler, 43 Fed. 653, 10 L. R. A. 446. It was not intended to and did not cause the power of the state to attach to an interstate shipment, whilst the merchandise was in transit under such shipment, nor un til arrival at the point of destination and delivery there to the consignee; Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Sup. Ct. 664, 42 L. Ed. 1088 ; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 472, 32 Sup. Ct. 236, 56 L. Ed. 510. Word arrival as used in the act means de livery of the goods to the consignee and not merely reaching destination, and the state's power does not attach before notice and a reasonable time for the consignee to receive the goods from the carrier ; and this rule is not affected by the fact that under the state law the carrier's liability as such may have ceased,and become that of a warehouseman; Heyman v. R. Co., 203 U. S. 270, 27 Sup. Ct. 104, 51 L. Ed. 178, 7 Ann. Cas. 1130. Under the act a state may impose a license, for regulating the sale of liquor in original packages brought from foreign countries, as well as that brought from other states; De Bary & Co. v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, 33 Sup. Ct. 350, 57 L. Ed. 556; and on travel ling salesmen soliciting orders for intoxicat ing liquors ; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U. S. 17, 25 Sup. Ct..552, 49 L. Ed. 925; and also, as a condition of the right to sell liquor over the bar on board of a steamboat, while within the boundaries of the state, notwithstanding such boat is navigating the Mississippi River and is engaged in inter state commerce ; Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 26 Sup. Ct. 138, 50 L. Ed. 288. A state may forbid the publication within its limits of advertisements of the keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors at places other states; State v. Pub. Co., 104 Me. 288, 71 Atl. 894, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 495.
The intent of congress in enacting the Wilson act was to give the several states power to deal with all liquors coming from outside to within their respective limits ; De Bary & Co. v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, 33 Sup. Ct. 350, 57 L. Ed. 556, affirming 130 La. 1090, 58 South. 892.
The Act of Congress, March, 1913, prohib iting interstate shipments of intoxicating liq uor where the shipment will violate the law of the place of destination, is constitutional; and the carrier of an interstate shipment of such liquors is amenable to state laws for taking interstate shipments into local option territory; State v. Van Winkle, 88 Atl. (Del.) 807. .
Under the South Carolina dispensary act, the state itself engages in the business of importing liquors for the purpose of profit, to the state, and thus recognizes that their use is lawful. She cannot, therefore, under her constitutional obligations to other states, control, hinder, and burden commerce in such articles between their citizens and her own; Donald v. Scott, 67 Fed. 854, affirmed in
Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 17 Sup. Ct. 265, 41 L. Ed. 632.
In this case the question whether a state could, under the constitution, confer upon certain officers or agents the sole power to buy all liquors sold in the state, and allow no other liquor to be sold, was reserved for future decision, it not being necessary to decide it at that time. And in Vandercook Co. v. Vance, 80 Fed. 786, under a subse quent amended statute, it was held that such officers could not seize original pack ages shipped into the state in violation of a provision of such statute that a sample of the contents should be first furnished to the state inspector, as such a provision could not be justified as an inspection law and was an interference with interstate commerce and in itself void. Affirmed as to this point in the supreme court; Vance v. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438, 18 Sup. Ct. 674, 42 L. Ed. 1100; but , reversed as to the right of the state to prohibit and regulate the sale of liq uors even in the original package. (Fuller C. J., Shiras and McKenna, JJ., dissenting as to the point reversed.) See ORIGINAL PACKAGE; COMMERCE.
In its general provisions, the dispensary act does not conflict with the constitution of the United States ; Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969; but in so far as its provisions con flict with interstate commerce, it is void; In re Langford, 57 Fed. 570 ; Moore v. Bahr, 82 Fed. 19. But when once a sale has been made of an original package and it has been delivered within the state, it cannot be again sold by its recipient or by any one else with out violation of the law; Moore v. Bahr, 82 Fed. 19.
The defendant, at the request of a neigh bor, ordered a quantity o? to be shipped into a dry county, paying for it himself and delivering it upon its arrival to the neighbor who repaid him. Defendant had neither interest nor profit in the enterprise. Held be could not be convicted under a local op tion law making it an offence "to sell, give away, or furnish" intoxicating liquors to any one in the local option area ; People v. Driv er, 174 Mich. 214, 140 N. W. 515.
One may order liquor shipped to him from outside a local option area without violating the statute. In the absence of evi dence of a contrary intention by the parties, delivery of the goods by the seller to a com mon carrier for shipment to the buyer trans fers title and completes the sale; [1898] A. C. 200. Hence there is no sale in the pro hibited territory; Frank v. Hoey, 128 Mass. 263; State v. Wingfield, 115 Mo. 428, 22 S. W. 363, 37 Am. St. Rep. 406; Harding v. State, 65 Neb. 238, 91 N. W. 194. There is also no furnishing in the dry county ; South ern Exp. Co. v. State, 107 Ga. 670, 33 S. E. 637, 46 L. R. A. 417, 73 Am. St. Rep. 146; as title has already passed to the pur chaser and one cannot "furnish" the owner with his own goods. What one may do him self he may do by an agent, and a sale to the agent is a sale to the principal. So where one acts merely as agent for another in pur chasing liquor outside the local option area and delivering it to his principal, he is not guilty of any act of sale within the county, although he advances his own money and is afterwards repaid by the principal ; Whit more v. State, 72 Ark. 14, 77 S. W. 598; State v. Allen, 161 N. C. 226, 75 S. E. 1082; People v. Tart, 169 Mich. 586, 135 N. W. 307.
Property used for' the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor may be declared a common nuisance, and as such abated; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205; and the abate ment of such a nuisance is not a taking of property without due process of law ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 ; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346. See NUISANCE.
A right of property in whisky cannot shield one from the consequences of his un lawful acts in keeping such whisky for ille gal sale ; State v. Creeden, 78 Ia. 556, 43 N. W. 673, 7 L. R. A. 295.
See FOOD AND DRUG ACTS ; ORIGINAL PACK AGE ; CONSTITUTIONALITY; JUDICIAL NOTICE (as to whether certain liquors are intoxi cating).
•