Delamater v. South Dakota
Headline: Court upholds state license law for traveling salesmen who solicit liquor orders, letting states regulate and punish in-state solicitation even when the liquor and sale originate in another State.
Holding: The Court affirmed the conviction, holding a State may license and punish a traveling salesman who solicits in-state liquor orders even if the liquor and sale originate elsewhere under the Wilson Act.
- Lets States require licenses for in-state solicitation of liquor orders.
- Allows prosecution of nonresident dealers’ agents who solicit liquor orders in-state.
- Restricts agents’ ability to evade state liquor controls by relying on out-of-state location.
Summary
Background
A liquor firm in St. Paul employed Delamater as a traveling salesman who solicited proposals in South Dakota for bottles or jugs under five gallons. When the firm accepted those proposals, it shipped the liquor from St. Paul to South Dakota buyers at their risk and cost on sixty days’ credit. South Dakota imposed an annual license on any traveling salesman who solicited such orders and made violation a misdemeanor; Delamater did not pay and was prosecuted and convicted by the state courts.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the state law conflicted with the Constitution’s commerce power given the federal Wilson Act. The Court quoted the Wilson Act, which says intoxicating liquors brought into a State are subject to that State’s laws as if produced there, and explained Congress meant to let States exercise broader control over liquor traffic. The Court rejected arguments that the statute could not apply because the liquor had not yet arrived in South Dakota, and relied on comparisons to insurance cases to distinguish an individual’s right to order goods from a State’s power to forbid local solicitation by nonresident dealers or their agents.
Real world impact
The ruling affirms that States can require licenses and punish in-state solicitation of liquor orders by nonresident dealers’ agents. It narrows the ability of agents to avoid state control by pointing to the liquor’s out-of-state location. The Court limited this holding to intoxicating liquors under the Wilson Act and set aside questions about other kinds of interstate commerce.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes that the Chief Justice dissented, though the opinion does not detail his views.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?