Rhodes, by moving the box from the depot platform to the freight house, only a few feet off, transported or conveyed the box from one place to another within the state, within the meaning of the statute of Iowa, present any question of law which this court is authorized to review, except so far as the statute, thus construed, may deprive him of a right under the constitution and laws of the United States.

The intoxicating liquor in question was brought by rail under a through waybill from Dallas, in the state of Illinois, to Burlington and Brighton, in the state of Iowa. It was carried by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company (whose road ran from Illinois into Iowa) to Burlington, and was there delivered to the Burlington & Western Railway (whose road was wholly in the state of Iowa), and was carried by this company to Brighton, and was there delivered by its servants upon the platform of its freight station. Taking into consideration that so much of the transportation as was performed by an interstate railroad company had been accomplished, and that the remainder of the transportation was by an Iowa corporation, and wholly within the state of Iowa, and had been so lar completed as to land the intoxicating liquor upon the soil of Iowa, we are of opinlon that there had been an "arrival in such state," so as to subject the liquor to the exercise of the police powers of the state of Iowa, within the letter and the spirit of the act of congress.

(170 U. S. 438)

VANCE et al. v. W. A. VANDERCOOK CO. (May 9, 1898.) No. 514.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE-INTOXICATING LIQUORS POLICE REGULATIONS OF STATE-SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY LAW.

1. Act Cong. Aug. 8, 1890 (26 Stat. 313), having made intoxicating liquors an exception to the settled rule that the constitutional right to transport an article of commerce from one state into another carries with it, as an incident, the right of the receiver to sell such article in the original packages, regardless of the laws of the state, by providing that such liquors, when transported into a state, shall, upon their arrival, be subject to the laws of such state enacted in the exercise of its police powers, a state may lawfully prohibit or regulate the sale of such liquors even in the original package.

2. A state law prohibiting the sale of liquors by others, though, by authorizing and providing for the establishment of dispensaries for their sale by agents of the state, it recognizes such liquors as the subject of legitimate commerce, is a regulation of their sale, which is a proper exercise of the police powers of the state.

3. The provision of the dispensary law of South Carolina giving to the state officers exclusive right to purchase all the liquor to be sold in the state, thereby vesting in them the power to restrict sales in the state to the products of one or more states, to the exclusion of the products of other states, does not create or authorize a discrimination which unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce, since every

resident of the state has the right, which cannot be affected by state legislation, to purchase from a nonresident liquors which are the prod uct of any state, and to have the same transported into the state for his own use.

4. The provisions of a previous law which have been held unconstitutional cannot be considered as a part of a law subsequently enacted from which they are omitted, merely because they are not inconsistent with its provisions, and its repealing clause repeals any laws inconsistent therewith.

5. The fact that a law omits provisions of a former law relating to the same subject which have been declared unconstitutional negatives an intention to make them a part of the new law.

6. The provision of the South Carolina dispensary law which authorizes the use by a resident of the state of wine or liquors made by him for such purpose is not discrimination against the products of other states, which interferes with interstate commerce, such liquors being subject to all restrictions as to sales imposed on other liquors.

7. The requirement of such law that a resident of the state intending to have shipped into the state from another state or foreign country any liquors for his own use shall first certify such intention to the state chemist, who shall be furnished by the proposed consignor with a sample of such liquors to be tested, and, if satisfied of their purity, shall issue to such consignor a certificate authorizing the shipment, and providing that any liquor transported into the state without such a certificate attached to the package shall be seized and confiscated, is in conflict with the constitution of the United States, and void, as being a substantial interference with and hampering of interstate commerce by the

state.

8. Such requirement cannot be sustained on the ground that it is merely an exercise of the right of inspection, and so a valid police regulation; since, if the right of the state to require inspection of goods not to be offered for sale within the state exists (which is not decided), no actual inspection of the liquors shipped is provided for.

80 Fed. 786, reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. The bill below was filed by the appellee, corporation created by the laws of California, and a citizen of that state. It alleged, in substance, that the corporation was the owner of large vineyards in California, from which it produced well-known qualities of pure wines and brandies and other liquors; that through its traveling agent, a citizen of the state of Virginia, it took orders from certain residents of the state of South Carolina residing in the city of Charleston, to deliver to each of them in Charleston certain original packages of wines and brandles, the products of the vineyards of the complainant; that, in consequence of said orders, 73 original packages for the customers afore said were shipped* in one car, by a contract for continuous interstate carriage from San Francisco to Charleston; that under a law of South Carolina, known as the "Dispensary Law," certain officers of the state of South Carolina had seized the packages of liquor above described, and prevented the delivery thereof, and openly avowed their intention to continue to levy upon any packages of

"And your orator further shows that your orator intends in the course of its said business, as aforesaid, further and in addition to said shipments so ordered by its said customers, in advance as aforesaid, to ship also from San Francisco, California, to its agent in the state of South Carolina, and to store and warehouse in the state of South Carolina, and to sell in the state of South Carolina, in the original unbroken packages as imported, as aforesaid, to the residents and citizens of the state of South Carolina, its wines and other liquors, products of its vineyards, as aforesaid, for the lawful use and consumption of the said residents and citizens of the state of South Carolina in the due and lawful exercise of your orator's right of importation of such wines, &c., products of its vineyards, into the state of South Carolina, in lawful intercourse, trade, and commerce with the citizens and residents of the state of South Carolina, under the constitution and laws of the United States, all of which shipments, as aforesaid, the defendants and other persons claiming to act as state constables and officials threaten to seize, take, and carry away, detain, convert, and sell, to the manifest wrong, damage, and injury of your orator and its trade and business, as aforesaid.

"And your orator further shows that by and under the terms, principle, policy, and operation of the said dispensary law of the state of South Carolina, as aforesaid, approved March 6, 1896, and amended March 5, 1897, all wines, beers, ales, alcoholic, spirituous, and other intoxicating liquors are subjects of lawful manufacture, barter, sale, export, and import in the state of South Carolina, and have been, are being, and will continue to be, lawfully used and consumed as a beverage by the citizens and residents of the state of South Carolina."

Averring the avowed purpose of the state officers to continue to seize all liquors thereafter shipped by the complainant into the state to residents therein or for sale in original packages, the bill proceeded to charge that the state law upon which the officers relied was void, because repugnant to the constitution of the United States; that to prevent the continuing wrong which would necessarily arise from the conduct of the state officers, and to avoid a multiplicity of suits, a writ of injunction was necessary, restraining the state officers from interfering with complainant in its shipment of its products to residents of the state on their orders, and also enjoining the state officers from interfering with the complainant in shipping its products from the state of California into the state of South Carolina to its agents there, for the purpose of selling the

same in original packages, the provisions of the South Carolina law to the contrary notwithstanding. This mere outline of the averments of the bill suffices to convey an understanding of the controversy which the record presents. A restraining order was granted as prayed for against the designated state officers, and, after due pleadings and proceedings, this restraining order was perpetuated, and a final decree was entered in favor of the complainant in accordance with the prayer of the bill. 80 Fed. 786.

Wm. A. Barber, for appellants. J. P. Kennedy Bryan, for appellee.

Mr. Justice WHITE, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

In the two cases of Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 107, 17 Sup. Ct. 262, 265, the court was called upon to determine whether a law of the state of South Carolina, controlling the sale of intoxicating liquors within that state, was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, In one of the cases it was held that the court below had jurisdiction to entertain a bill filed by the complainants to enjoin the execution of the law, as to liquors by them owned; while in both cases it was decided that, in so far as the law then in question forbade the sending from one state into South Carolina of intoxicating liquors for the use of the person to whom it was shipped, the statute was repugnant to the third clause of section 8 of the first article of the constitution of the United States, commonly spoken of as the "interstate commerce clause" of the constitution. It was, besides, decided that the law in question, which created state officers or agents with authority to buy liquor to be sold in the state, and which forbade the sale of any liquor except that so bought and offered for sale by the state officers or agents, was also in violation of the constitution of the United States, because amounting to an unjust discrimination against liquors, the products of other states. The conclusion reached on this latter subject was predicated, not on the general theory which the statute put in practice, but on particular provisions of the law by which the discrimination was brought about. Whether a state could, without violating the constitution of the United States, confer upon certain officers or agents the sole power to buy ali liquors which were to be sold in the state, allowing no other liquor to be sold except that offered for sale by the designated officers or agents, was not decided. On the contrary, this question was reserved, for, as the state law was found to violate the constitution because of express discriminatory provisions which it contained, it became unnecessary to determine whether a law of that general character would be inherently repugnant to the constitution o the United States. Referring to this last ques tion, the court said (page 101, 165 U. S., and page 272, 17 Sup. Ct.):

"It was pressed on us in the argument that It is not competent for a state, in the exercise of its police power, to monopolize the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and thus put itself in competition with the citizens of other states. This phase of the subject is novel and interesting, but we do not think it necessary for us now to consider it. It is sufficient for the present case to hold, as we do, that, when a state recognizes the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating liquors as lawful, it cannot discriminate against the bringing of such articles in and importing them from other states; that such legislation is void, as a hindrance to interstate commerce, and an unjust preference of the products of the enacting state as against similar products of other states."

It,

The controversy which this record presents arises from a law of South Carolina, similar in its general scope to the one which was under review in Scott v. Donald. The statute before us, however, was enacted after the decision in Scott v. Donald, and changes in many important particulars the law which was passed on in that case. The statute, as changed, retains the general provisions conferring on the state officers or agents the exclusive right to buy all liquor which is to be sold in the state, and to sell the same, but does not contain those clauses in the previous statute which were held to operate as a discrimination. moreover, modifies the previous statute to the extent that it allows shipments of intoxicating liquors to be made from other states into the state of South Carolina to residents therein for their own use, but subjects the exercise of this right to designated regulations and restrictions. Despite these differences, it is asserted that the present law is repugnant to the constitution of the United States for the following reasons: First. Because, although the features in the prior act which were held to be discriminatory have been eliminated from this act, nevertheless there are, it is asserted, other provisions in the present act which on their face amount to a discrimination, and therefore render the act void. Second. Because, as the act, as at present drawn, created state officers and confers upon them the power to buy all the liquor which is to be sold in the state, and forbids the sale of any other liquor by any other person, it is therefore in violation of the constitution of the United States to the extent that it seeks to control or forbid the sale in original packages of all liquor shipped into South Carolina from other states. And this controversy presents for consideration the question which was reserved in Scott v. Donald. Third. Because, although the amended statute recognizes the right of residents* of other states to ship intoxicating liquors to the residents of South Carolina and their right to receive the same, for their own use, it, in reality, it is asserted, denies such right, since its exercise is subjected to conditions which hamper and frustrate the same to such a degree that they are equivalent to a denial of the right itself. The two first con

tentions go to the whole statute, and therefore, if well taken, render it void as an entirety. The third is narrower in its purport, since it only assails as unconstitutional the particular restrictions which the statute imposes upon the right of the residents of another state to ship into South Carolina and of the residents of that state to receive liquor for their own use. We, therefore, at the outset, dispose of the two first contentions, before approaching the third.

In the inception is it necessary to bear in mind a few elementary propositions, which are so entirely concluded by the previous adjudications of this court that they need only be briefly recapitulated.

(a) Beyond dispute, the respective states have plenary power to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors within their borders, and the scope and extent of such regulations depend solely on the judgment of the law-making power of the states, provided, always, they do not transcend the limits of state authority by invading rights which are secured by the constitution of the United States, and provided, further, that the regulations as adopted do not operate a discrimination against the rights of residents or citizens of other states of the Union.

(b) Equally well established is the proposition that the right to send liquors from one state into another, 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 hence that a state law which denies such a right, or substantially interferes or hampers the same, is in conflict with the constitution of the United States.

(c) It is also certain that the settled doctrine is that the power to ship merchandise from one state into another carries with it, as an incident, the right in the receiver of the goods to sell them in the original packages, any state regulation to the contrary notwithstanding; that is to say, that the goods received by interstate commerce remain under the shelter of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, until, by a sale in the original package, they have been commingled with the general mass of property in the state.

This last proposition, however, while generically true, is no longer applicable to intoxicating liquors, since congress, in the exercise of its lawful authority, has recognized the power of the several states to control the incidental right of sale, in the original packages, of intoxicating liquors, shipped into one state from another, so as to enable the states to prevent the exercise by the receiver of the accessory right of selling. intoxicating liquors in original packages except in conformity to lawful state regulations. In other words, by virtue of the act of congress, the receiver of intoxicating liquors in one state, sent from another. can no longer assert a right to sell in defiance

of the state law in the original packages, because congress has recognized to the contrary. The act of congress referred to was approved August 8, 1890, and is entitled "An act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several states and with foreign countries in certain cases." It reads as follows:

"That all fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any state or territory, or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein, shall, upon arrival in such state or territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such state or territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such state or territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise." 26 Stat. 313.

The scope and effect of this act of congress have been settled. In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545; Rhodes v. State of Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Sup. Ct. 664.

In the first of these cases the constitutional power of congress to pass the enactment in question was upheld, and the purpose of congress in adopting it was declared to have been to allow state laws to operate on liquor shipped into one state from another, so as to prevent the sale in the original package in violation of state laws. In the second case the same view was taken of the statute, and although it was decided that the power of the state did not attach to the intoxicating liquor when in course of transit, and until receipt and delivery, it was yet reiterated that the obvious and plain meaning of the act of congress was to allow the state laws to attach to intoxicating liquors received by interstate commerce shipments before sale in the original package, and therefore at such a time as to prevent such sale if made unlawful by the state law.

The claim that the state statute is unconstitutional, because it deprives of the right to sell imported liquor in the original packages, rests, therefore, on the assumption that the state law is a regulation of interstate commerce, because it forbids the doing of an act which, in consequence of the permissive grant resulting from the act of congress, the state had undoubtedly the lawful power to do. Indeed, the entire argument by which it is endeavored to maintain the contention arises from excluding from view the change as to the sale of intoxicating liquor arising from the act of congress; that is, it rests on the fallacious assumption that the state is without power to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors in original packages despite the act of congress, while in fact, as a result of that act, the restrictions and regulations of state laws become operative on the original package before the sale thereof, and therefore such packages cannot be

sold if the state law forbids the sale, or can be only so sold in the manner and form prescribed by the state regulations. In view of the self-evident misconception upon which the argument proceeds, it becomes unnecessary to review the many decisions of this court cited in support of the proposition relied upon.

Their authority is unquestioned, but their irrelevancy is equally obvious. They all relate to and illustrate various aspects of the principle that the right to send merchandise from one state to another carries with it as an incident the power of*the one by whom they are received to sell them in the original package, even although so doing may be contrary to a state law. None of them have the remotest bearing on the exception to this general rule springing from the act of congress. The right of the state to forbid the sale of liquors in the original packages being clear, it results that a state law cannot be void because in excess of state authority, when it is but the execution of a power lawfully vested in the legislature of the state. This reasoning would dispose of the case but for the contention that the act of congress in question has no bearing on the controversy, and, indeed that in this case the power of the state to control the sale of intoxicants in an original package must be determined just as if the act of congress had never been passed.

Congress, it is argued, by the act in question, has submitted merchandise in original packages only to the control of state laws "enacted in the exercise of its police pow. ers." As the state law here in question does not forbid, but, on the contrary, authorizes, the sale of intoxicants within the state, hence it is not a police law, therefore not enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state, and consequently does not operate upon the sale of original packages within the state. But the premise upon which these arguments rest is purely arbitrary and imaginary. From the fact that the state law permits the sale of liquor subject to particular restrictions, and only upon enumerated conditions, it does not follow that the law is not a manifestation of the police power of the state. The plain purpose of the act of congress having been to allow state regulations to operate upon the sale of original packages of intoxicants coming from other states, it would destroy its obvious meaning to construe it as permitting the state laws to attach to and control the sale only in case the states absolutely forbade sales of liquor, and not to apply in case the states determined to restrict or regulate the

same.

The confusion of thought which is involved in the proposition to which we have just referred is embodied in the principle upon which the court below mainly rested, 8 its conclusion; that is, “if all alcoholic liq-) uors, by whomsoever held, are declared contraband, they cease to belong to commerce,

and are within the jurisdiction of the police power; but so long as their manufacture, purchase, or sale, and their use as a beverage in any form or by any person, are recognized, they belong to commerce, and are without the domain of the police power." But this restricts the police power to the mere right to forbid, and denies any and all authority to regulate or restrict. The manifest purpose of the act of congress was to subject original packages to the regulations and restraints imposed by the state law. If the purpose of the act had been to allow the state law to govern the sale of the original package only where the sales of all liquor were forbidden, this object could have found ready expression; while, on the contrary, the entire context of the act manifests the purpose of congress to give to the respective states full legislative authority, both for the purpose of prohibition as well as for that of regulation and restriction with reference to the sale in original packages of intoxicating liquors brought in from other states.

Nor is the claim well founded that it was decided in Scott v. Donald that the provisions of the act of congress of 1890 do not apply in any state by whose laws the sale of liquor is not absolutely forbidden; that is to say, that the right exists to sell original packages in violation of the state laws wherever they do not prohibit liquor from being sold under any circumstances. The language in Scott v. Donald, which it is asserted establishes this doctrine, is as follows (page 100, 165 U. S., and page 272, 17 Sup. Ct.):

"It [the South Carolina law then considered] is not a law purporting to forbid the importation, manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating liquors, as articles detrimental to the welfare of the state and to the health of the inhabitants, and hence it is not within the scope and operation of the act of congress of August, 1890."

Separated from its context, these words might have the significance sought to be attached to them; but when elucidated by a reference to what immediately preceded them, and that which immediately followed, it is obvious that they refer to the matter which was being considered; that is, a state law which did not forbid the sale, but, on the contrary, allowed it,*under conditions of express discrimination against the products of other states. Immediately following the passage cited is this language:

"That law [the act of congress] was not intended to confer upon any state the power to discriminate injuriously against the products of other states in articles whose manufacture and use are not forbidden, and which are therefore the subjects of legitimate commerce. When that law provided that 'all fermented, distilled or intoxicating liquors transported into any state or territory, remaining therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein, should, upon arrival in such state or territory, be subject to the

operation and effect of the laws of such state or territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such state or territory, and should not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise,' evidently equality or uniformity of treatment under state laws was intended. The question whether a given state law is a lawful exercise of the police power is still open, and must remain open, to this court. Such a law may forbid entirely the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, and be valid; or it may provide equal regulations for the inspection and sale of all domestic and imported liquors, and be valid. But the state cannot, under the congressional legislation referred to, establish a system which, in effect, discriminates between interstate and domestic commerce in commodities to make and use which are admitted to be lawful."

Having found that the law under consideration expressly discriminated against the products of other states, the question which arose for decision was whether the act of congress allowed such a law to operate on the original package; and it became therefore not necessary to decide what would be the rule where discrimination did not exist. The conclusion expressed on that branch of the case was this, and nothing more: that, although the act of congress authorizes a state law to attach to an original package so as to prevent its sale, it did not contemplate and sanction the operation of a state law which injuriously discriminated against the products of other states, and which, in consequence of such discrimination, was not a police law, in the correct sense of those words. It would lead to an impossible conclusion to treat the sentences in Scott v. Donald upon which reliance is placed as having the significance attributed to them in argument, since, as we have already stated, the court expressly reserved the question of whether a state law which undertook to confer on its officers power to buy all liquor which was to be sold in the state would be constitutional if no express discriminatory provisions were found in it. It is obvious from even a casual reading of the opinion that the court did not pass on the very question which it expressly declared it abstained from deciding.

A more plausible, but equally unsound, proposition, is involved in the contention that the state law in question is inherently discriminatory. The argument by which this is supported is as follows: The law gives to the state officers exclusive right to purchase all the liquor to be sold in the state. The authority to purchase includes the right on the part of the buyer to determine from whom and where the purchase may be made. This gives the officers the opportunity, by exercising their right of purchase, to buy in