1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 940 
cies on reaching the state or only after delivery to the consignee. 
The latter is held to be the meaning of the “‘ Wilson Bill.’’ Jus- 
tices Gray, Harlan and Brown dissent, in the first place because, 
they say, the police power of the state attached any way without 
help from the ‘‘ Wilson Bill.’’ In the next place they hold strenu- 
ously that when Congress said that the liquor should be subject to 
the state law on arrival within the state, those plain words indi- 
cated a plain intention and should be followed. 
In Vance vs. Vandercook Co. the police power gave way before 
the commerce clause, but prevailed as against the fourteenth amend- 
ment. The South Carolina law stopping all private traffic in 
liquor and creating a state dispensary was in part upheld. The 
company was shipping wines from California to an agent in South 
Carolina to be sold in unbroken packages and asked an injunction 
against the agents of the state who threatened ta take possession of 
the stock. The United States Circuit Court for South Carolina 
granted the injunction and the state officers appealed. 
The year before in + Scott vs. Donald, in substance the same law 
of the state had been before the court, but was found bad on 
account of some minor discriminations against liquors produced in 
other states. The authority of the state to create such an agency 
and forbid all private sale was not passed upon. The law as now 
amended was objected to, first, as repugnant to the commerce 
clause ; second, that in directing state officers to buy and sell all 
liquors in the state, the law forbade sales by others in the original 
packages ; and, third, that the law hampers the shipping in of 
liquors to a citizen for his own use by conditions destructive of the 
right. 
It was held that the state might establish its own dispensary, but 
could not require each resident ordering wines or liquors to furnish 
a sample of his proposed purchase to the state chemist and geta 
certificate of its purity. This was held not to be an inspection law 
as the liquor actually shipped was not inspected. 
In * Schollenberger vs. Pennsylvania and Paul vs. Pennsylvania, 
oleomargarine triumphed with the aid of the commerce clause. 
The same statute, as in the case of * Powell vs. Pennsylvania, was 
under consideration, but this time instead of a home manufacturing 
plant to be rendered worthless, if the manufacture was forbidden, 
1765 U,S., 58. ce bi MET oe Sars Ve 
3727 U, S., 678. 
