[391] Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 125 U. S. 465 (1888).
[392] See, inter alia, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 (1890), and Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412 (1897).
[393] This is the theory of the Webb-Kenyon Act. See my papers, “The Power of the States over Commodities Excluded by Congress from Interstate Commerce,” 24 Yale Law Journal, 567 (May, 1915), and “State Legislation under the Webb-Kenyon Act.” 28 Harvard Law Review, 225 (January, 1915).
[394] See the reasoning in State v. Delaye, 68 So. 993 (Ala., 1915).
[395] West Virginia v. Adams Express Co., 219 Fed. Rep. 794 (1915).
[396] 1 N. Y. 173 (1848).
[397] Hayner v. State, 83 Ohio St. 178 (1910). See also Zinn v. State, 83 Ark. 273, 114 S. W. 227 (1908).
[398] U. S. v. Thayer, 209 U. S. 39 (1908), and In re Palliser, 136 U. S. 257 (1890).
[399] 37 Stat. L. 699. For a further discussion of this point see my paper, “Unlawful Possession of Intoxicating Liquors and the Webb-Kenyon Act,” 16 Columbia Law Review, 1 (1916).
[400] 133 Ga. 353, 65 S. E. 770, 36 L. R. A. (n. s.) 443 (1909), and note, which says that the case is one primae impressionis. It should be said that the decision in the Court of Appeals was contra. See 4 Ga. App. 588, 62 S. E. 117 (1908).