38 F. 489 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire | 1889
By the laws of New Hampshire it is made a criminal offense for a person to solicit or take orders for spirituous liquors in the state, to be delivered at a place without tbe state, knowing, or having
Upon the point that the law is unconstitutional the plaintiffs rely upon the recent case of Bowman v. Railway Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062. That case decided that a statute of Iowa w'hich restricted the importation of liquors from another state wras'void because it was a violation of the right of congress to regulate commerce between the states. But that case is not applicable to the present one. The stat-' ute of New Hampshire does not restrict the importation of liquors from other states; it simply forbids the taking of orders for liquors to be sold within the state in violation of law. It may be that the effect of the law is to prevent the importation of liquors from other states, but the distinction between state restrictions upon the importation and state restrictions upon the sale of a commodity when within the state is clearly recognized, and well defined. It is well stated in the closing words of Mr. Justice Matthews in Bowman v. Railway Co.:
*491 “Tt is enough to say that the power to regulate or forbid the sale of a commodity, after it has been brought into the state, does not carry with it the right and power to prevent its introduction by transportation from another state.”
The motion for a new trial is overruled.