Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-381

Opinion No. 381 Liquor Control Act-Constitutional Law-Interstate Commerce HELD: 'fhe provisions of the Mon- tana Liquor Control Act do not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in view of the pro- visions of Section 2 of the proposed 21st. Amendment. November 8, 1933 You ask whether or not the provi- sions of the Montana Liquor Control Act violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by in- terfering with the freedom of inter- state commerce insofar as such provi- sions operate to prevent the purchasing of liquors by Montana residents di- rectly from importers in New York City, initiating the transaction by mail and consummating it by railway ship- ments through interstate commerce. I think this question is answered by Section 2 of the proposed 21st. Amend- ment, repealing the 18th. Amendment, which reads: "Section 2. The trans- portation or importation into any state territory or posseSsion of the United 264 OPINIONS OF THE A'l'TOR~EY Gl!JNERAL States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the la ws thereof, is hereby prohibited." Years ago it was held that Congress itself, without the necessity of any constitutional pro"ision, might divest intoxicating liquors of their character as interstate commerce upon arrival in a state even though imported in the original packages by the individual user. We call attention to the pro- "isions of the Webb-Kenyon Act of March 1, 1913, (37 Stat. L. 699, c. 90) liS amended by the Reed Amendment of March 3, 1917 (39 State L. 1069) which legislation was held valid in Clark Distilling Co. v Western Mary- land R. Co. 242 U. S. 311, 61 L. Ed. 326, LRA un 7B, 1218, 37 S. Ot: R. 180; and in United States v. Hill, 248 U. S. 420, 6 3L. Ed. 337, 39 S. Ot. R. 143.