In Adams Express Co. v. Iowa,17 however, the court declared the question as to when title to the liquors passed to be irrelevant, the material point being whether, in point of fact, interstate commerce could be said to be interfered with. This they declared would result from an attempt on the part of the States to restrain or punish the delivery of such C. O. D. shipments. After observing that there was a diversity of opinion as to when title to C. O. D. shipments passes, the court say: "But we need not consider this subject. Beyond possible question, the contract to sell and ship was completed in Illinois. The right of the parties to make a contract in Illinois for the sale and purchase of merchandise, and, in doing so, to fix by agreement the time when and condition on which the completed title should pass, is beyond question. The shipment from the State of Illinois into the State of Iowa of the merchandise constituted interstate commerce. To sustain, therefore, the ruling of the court below would require us to decide that the law of Iowa operated in another State so as to invalidate a lawful contract as to interstate commerce made in such other State; and, indeed, would require us to go yet further, and say that, although, under the interstate commerce clause, a citizen in one State had a right to have merchandise consigned from another State delivered to him in the State to which the shipment was made, yet that such right was so illusory that it only obtained in cases where, in a legal sense, the merchandise contracted for had been delivered to the consignee at the time and place of shipment.18 In Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw19 it was held that, under the operation of the Wilson Act, a state inspection law was valid which provided for an inspection of beer and other malt liquors shipped into the State and held there for sale or consumption. The fact that an inspection fee was charged which was greater than the cost of the inspection itself, and that this inspection which was provided was inadequate as a protection against fraud or impurity, was held immaterial.20

17 196 U. S. 147; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; 49 L. ed. 424.

18 "When it is considered," the opinion continues, "that the necessary result of the ruling below was to hold that, wherever merchandise shipped from one State to another is not completely delivered to the buyer at the point of shipment so as to be at his risk from that moment, the movement of such merchandise is not interstate commerce, it becomes apparent that the principle, if sustained, would operate materially to cripple, if not destroy, that freedom of commerce between the States which it was the great purpose of the Constitution to promote. If upheld, the doctrine would deprive a citizen of one State of his right to order merchandise from another State at the risk of the seller as to delivery. It would prevent the citizen of one State from shipping into another unless he assumed the risk; it would subject contracts made by common carriers, and valid by the laws of the State where made, to the laws of another State; and it would remove from the protection of the interstate commerce clause all goods on consignment upon any condition as to delivery, express or implied. Besides, it would also render the Commerce Clause of the Constitution inoperative as to all that vast body of transactions by which the products of the country move in the channels of interstate commerce by means of bills of lading to the shipper's order, with drafts for the purchase price attached, and many other transactions essential to the freedom of commerce, by which the complete title to merchandise is postponed to the delivery thereof."

The opinion further declares that the point involved had, in fact, been substantially decided in Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; 47 L. ed. 336, and Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sims, 191 U. S. 441; 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151; 48 L. ed. 254. See a discussion of these cases post, p. 706.

19 108 U. S. 17; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552; 49 L. ed. 925.

20 The court say: "Conceding that the law in question may be inadequate to accomplish the purpose designed, and produces a large revenue to the State over and above the cost of inspection, this affords no federal ground upon which to hold that the police power of the State would not be brought into play in making the enactment where the law does not operate upon a subject within the federal control. This becomes evident when it is borne in mind that, whether the statute be regarded as a prohibition, as a regulation, Furthermore the court held immaterial the fact that the operation of the state law was or might be such as to deter importations into the State. As to this the majority justices say: "If, when a State has but exerted the power lawfully conferred upon it by the act of Congress, its action becomes void as an interference with interstate commerce because of the reflex or indirect influence arising from the exercise of the lawful authority, the result would be that a State might exert its power to control or regulate liquor; yet if it did so its action would amount to a regulation of commerce and be void. And this would be but to say at one and the same time that the power could and could not be exercised. But the proposition would have a much more serious result, since to uphold it would overthrow the distinction between direct and indirect burdens upon interstate commerce, by means of which the harmonious workings of our constitutional system has been made possible." 21 as a license, or as an inspection law, if it encroached upon the federal authority it would be void, and, on the contrary, in all or any of these aspects the law would be valid, so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, if it did not so encroach. The purpose of the Wilson Act was to make liquor after its arrival a domestic product, and to confer power upon the States to deal with it accordingly. The police power is, hence, to be measured by the right of a State to control or regulate domestic products, a state, and not a federal question as respects the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. So far as the state aspect is concerned, the matter is foreclosed by a decision of the supreme court of Missouri passing upon the validity, under the state Constitution of the law now under consideration."

21 In a strong dissenting opinion three justices agree that the law in question should have been held void. They deny that the law could rightly be sustained as an inspection law, for it did not provide for an adequate inspection, or that it was a legitimate police measure, for it did not afford protection against fraud or impurity; and finally, they emphasize the fact that the inspection fee charged was excessive, being thirty times the cost of inspection. "A disproportion so gross," they say, "can only be accounted for upon the theory that the act was intended for the purposes of revenue and not for inspection." As to the application of the Wilson Act the dissenting justices say: "The act does not affect the right of inspection, since the right was one which existed wholly independent of the act, and had been applied and recognized ever since the case of New York v. Miln (11 Pet. 102; 9 L. ed. 648), as one of the ordinary police powers of the State, which it was at liberty to exercise quite irrespective of any federal statute for the protection of the health of its citizens. The Wilson Act neither creates, adds to, takes from, nor affects, the police powers of the State with respect to inspection in any is essential to constitute their "arrival" within the meaning of the Wilson Act, and also that the mere placing of such a shipment in the carrier's warehouse to await delivery to the consignee does not constitute arrival.23

In Heymann v. Southern R. Co.22 it was held that the delivery of the interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors to their consignees particular. The power of the State to enact inspection laws, provided that such laws are intended in good faith for the protection of the people, and not as a covert means for raising revenue by exorbitant charges, remains precisely as it was before the act was passed. . . . While we may concede that the liquors in this case had arrived at their destination, it does not follow that they were subject to any law which the State chose to pass in an assumed exercise of the police power. The State has an undoubted right to inspect all goods arriving therein, but it does not follow that it has the right to subject them to an inspection which is no inspection at all, and charge them with a fee out of all proportion to the costs of even a proper inspection, and to call it an exercise of the police power. Though these liquors had arrived at their destination, the State provided that, by § 5 of the act, they should be inspected before offering them for sale and before they had been commingled with the general mass of property. The fact that they had been delivered to the consignee was of no materiality, since the act which the State required should be done was one which applied a condition precedent to their admission to the State for commercial purposes. Until this act was performed, they were protected against an unlawful interference. This inspection might have taken place at the state line, but, for the convenience of the state officers, as well as that of the brewers, it was postponed until the arrival at their destination, as is frequently the case in foreign countries, where imported goods are not examined at the frontier, but at Paris or London, upon their arrival there; but they are not legally entered until such examination takes place. To say that their character as interstate commerce existed at the state line, but had been lost upon their arrival at their place of destination before they had shown themselves entitled to enter the State, is to apply a test wholly irrelevant under the circumstances. ... If the inspection were not a bona fide exercise of the police power, it was an unlawful interference with such commerce. Whether the inspection was made at the state line, or at the destination of the goods, it absolutely immaterial. . . . The consequences of this decision seem to me extremely serious. If the States may, in the assumed exercise of police powers, enact inspection laws, which are not such in fact, and thereby indirectly impose a revenue tax on liquors, it is difficult to see any limit to this power of taxation, or why it may not be applied to any other articles brought within the State, and the cases of Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; 34 L. ed. 455, and Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78: 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213: 34 L. ed. 862, be practically overruled. The Wilson Act does not give the legislature any greater authority with respect to the inspection of liquors, and, as already observed, it leaves the question of inspection where it found it If the Wilson Act receives its natural application - that is. of meeting the exigency created by our decision in Leisy v. Hardin, and enabling the States to enforce their prohibitory liquor laws upon the arrival of the liquor within the State, as we have repeatedly held.-the law has a definite and distinct value, and is readily understood."

22 203 U. S. 270; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104: 51 L. ed. 178.