In Delamater v. South Dakota24 the application of the doctrine declared in Vance v. Vandercook is limited in its application to orders for liquor placed by the individual consumer, and the authority of the States upheld to impose an annual license charge upon the business of selling or offering for sale within the State by traveling salesmen intoxicating liquors in quantities less than five gallons which are to be brought into the State from outside. In this case it was strenuously argued that inasmuch as the liquor thus sold had not arrived and been delivered in the State, it could not be held to come within the terms of the Wilson Act As to this the court say: "This is simply to misapprehend and misapply the cases and to misconceive the nature of the act done in the carrying on the business of soliciting proposals. The rulings in the previous cases to the effect that, under the Wilson Act, state authority did not extend over liquor shipped from one State to another until arrival and delivery to the consignee at the point of destination, were but a recognition of the fact that Congress did not intend, in adopting the Wilson Act, even if it lawfully could have done so, to authorize one State to exert its authority in another State by preventing the delivery of liquor embraced by transactions made in such other State. The proposition here relied on is widely different, since it is that, despite the Wilson Act, the State of South Dakota was without power to regulate or control the business carried on in South Dakota of soliciting proposals relating to liquor situated in another State. But the business of soliciting proposals in South Dakota was one which that State had a right to regulate, wholly irrespective of when or where it was contemplated the proposals would be accepted or whence the liquor which they embraced was to be shipped. Of course, if the owner of the liquor in another State had the right to ship the same into South Dakota as an article of interstate commerce, and, as such, there sell the same in the original package, irrespective of the laws of South Dakota, it would follow that the right to carry on the business of soliciting in South Dakota was an incident to the right to ship and sell, which could not be burdened without directly affecting interstate commerce. But as by the Wilson Act the power of South Dakota attached to intoxicating liquors when shipped into that State from another State after delivery but before the sale in the original package, so as to authorize South Dakota to regulate or forbid such sale, it follows that the regulation by South Dakota of the business carried on within its borders of soliciting proposals to purchase intoxicating liquors, even though such liquors were situated in other States, cannot be held to be repugnant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because directly or indirectly burdening the right to sell in South Dakota, a right which by virtue of the Wilson Act did not exist."

23 The court say: "As the general principle is that goods moving in interstate commerce cease to he such commerce only after delivery and sale in the original package, and as the settled rule is that the Wilson law was not an abdication of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, since that law simply affects an incident of such commerce, by allowing the state power to attach after delivery and before sale, we are not concerned with whether, under the law of any particular State, the liability of a railroad company as carrier ceases and becomes that of a warehouseman on the goods reaching their ultimate destination before notice and before the expiration of a reasonable time for the consignee to receive the goods from the carrier. For, whatever may be the divergent legal rules in the several States concerning the precise time when the liability of a carrier as such in respect to the carriage of goods ends, they cannot affect the general principle as to when an interstate shipment ceases to be under the protection of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."The court, however, add that they do not decide" if the goods of the character referred to in the Wilson Act moving in interstate commerce, arrive at the point of destination, and, after notice and full opportunity to receive them, are designedly left in the hands of the carrier for an unreasonable time, that such conduct on the part of the consignee might not justify, if affirmatively alleged and proven, the holding that goods so dealt with have come under the operation of the Wilson Act, because constructively delivered."

24 205 U. S. 93; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 447; 51 L. ed. 724.

It was also argued in this case that it having been decided in Vance v. Vandercook that, notwithstanding the Wilson Act, the State had no right to prohibit the importation of liquor by a resident for his own use and consumption, it, therefore, followed that the State might place no burden upon the" solicitation of orders of liquors for such purpose. To this, however, the court replied, that between the right of the individual to import goods from another State or to make a contract for such importation, and the right of a person or company to carry on the business of soliciting such contracts there is a wide difference; and that previous decisions of the court had established that while the power could not be interfered with or restrained by the States, the latter could be. Thus it had been held that a State might regulate and forbid the making within its borders of insurance contracts with its citizens by foreign insurance companies or their agents ;25 but that the States might not prohibit a citizen from making a contract of insurance in another State.26

25 Hoopper. California, 155 U. S. 648; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207; 39 L. ed. 207.

26 Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; 41 L. ed. 832; Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553; 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238; 46 L. ed. 324.

In Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky27 it was held that the agreement of the local agent of the express company to hold for a few days a C. 0. D. interstate shipment of liquor to suit the convenience of the consignee did not destroy the character of the transaction as interstate commerce and render the company liable to prosecution under a state liquor law. Also, it was held that evidence that the express company knew that the C. O. D. shipment of liquor had not been ordered by the consignee was immaterial on a criminal prosecution where the indictment averred that the company was engaged in the business of a common carrier, and shipment and delivery were made in the usual course of its business.

After quoting from Nutting v. Massachusetts, the court say: "The ruling thus made is particularly pertinent to the subject of intoxicating liquors and the powers of the State in respect thereto. As we have seen, the right of the States to prohibit the sale of liquor within their respective jurisdictions in and by virtue of the regulation of commerce embodied in the Wilson Act is applicable to liquor shipped from one State into another, after delivery, and before the sale in the original package. It follows that the authority of the States, so far as the sale of intoxicating liquors within their borders is concerned, is just as complete as is their right to regulate within their jurisdiction the making of contracts of insurance. It hence must be that the authority of the States to forbid agents of non-resident liquor dealers from coming within their borders to solicit contracts for the purchase of intoxicating liquors which otherwise the citizen of the State would not have thought of making' must be as complete and efficacious as is such authority in relation to contracts of insurance, especially in view of the conceptions of public order and social well-being which it may be assumed lie at the foundation of regulations concerning the traffic in liquor."

27 206 U.S.129; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 606: 51 L. ed. 987.