authority to attach to the original package before sale but only after delivery. Scott v. Donald, and Rhodes v. The State of Iowa, supra. It follows that under the Constitution of the United States every resident of South Carolina is free to receive for his own use liquor from other States and that the inhibitions of a state statute do not operate to prevent liquors from other States from being shipped into such State, on the order of a resident for his use."

And in subsequent cases the construction adopted in the previous cases of the word "arrival" as employed in the Wilson Act has been reaffirmed and applied. Thus in American Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133, in reviewing the Rhodes case the meaning of the Wilson Act was again reiterated, the court saying (p. 142):

"The contention was that, as by the Wilson Act, the power of the State operated upon the property the moment it passed the state boundary line, therefore the State of Iowa had the right to forbid the transportation of the merchandise within the State and to punish those carrying it therein. This was not sustained. The court declined to express an opinion as to the authority of Congress, under its power to regulate commerce, to delegate to the States the right to forbid the transportation of merchandise from one State to another. It was, however, decided that the Wilson Act manifested no attempt on the part of Congress to exert such power, but was only a regulation of commerce, since it merely provided, in the case of intoxicating liquors, that such merchandise, when transported from one State to another, should lose its character as interstate commerce upon completion of delivery under the contract of interstate shipment, and before sale in the original packages."

Again, in Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, referring to the Wilson Act and its previous construction, it was declared (p. 517):

"This act was held to be constitutional in the case of In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, and that by virtue of said act, state

statutes might operate upon the original packages of intoxicating liquors before sale in the State. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, and Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Company, No. 1, 170 U. S. 438, held that the state statute must permit the delivery of the liquors to the party to whom they were consigned within the State, but that, after such delivery, the State had power to prevent the sale of the liquors, even in the original package."

As the general principle is that goods moving in interstate commerce cease to be 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, and thereby comes under the control of the state authority.

Of course we are not called upon in this case, and do not decide, if 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. We say we

are not called upon to consider this question, for the reason that no facts are shown by the record justifying passing on such a proposition. And as in this case we deal only with the power of the State to enforce its police regulations against goods of the character of those enumerated in the Wilson Act, the subject of interstate commerce, before delivery, we must not be understood as in any way limiting or restricting the ruling made in Vance v. Vandercook Co., No. 1, supra, upholding the right of a citizen of one State to bring from another State into the State of his residence, and keep therein, for his personal use, the merchandise referred to in the Wilson Act. In other words, as in the case at bar, delivery had not taken place when the seizures were made, and the control of the State over the goods had not attached, we are not called upon to consider whether, if the power of the State had attached by delivery, the State might not have levied upon the goods on the charge that they had not been bona fide brought into the State, and were not held by the consignees for their personal use, and, therefore, were not within the ruling in Vance v. Vandercook Co., No. 1, supra.

The conclusion that the court below erred in declining to follow the prior rulings of this court construing the Wilson Act disposes of the entire controversy arising on the record before us, for the following reasons: In its answer filed in the trial court the railroad company substantially defended alone upon the ground that the seizure was rightful. And the Supreme Court of Georgia treated the liability of the defendant as depending solely upon the validity of the seizure. The court said:

"If they [the goods] were still in the course of interstate transportation, the seizure by the constable was not even prima facie legal, for the very law under which the seizure was made had, prior to such seizure, been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States to be unconstitutional in so far as it interfered with interstate commerce. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58. It, therefore, follows that if the shipment had not

been completed at the time the goods were seized, the railroad company would have no right to defend on the ground that it submitted to the superior authority, granting that such a defense, if established, would relieve it from liability."

Moreover, in this court counsel in their brief on behalf of the defendant in error rely exclusively upon the correctness of the construction given to the Wilson Act by the court below, and do not urge, in the event such construction be not sustained, that it was exempt for any reason whatever from liability.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER COMPANY v. FRANSON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

No. 30. Argued October 17, 1906.-Decided December 3, 1906.

A declaration that plaintiff is a resident of a State of the Union and a citizen of a foreign country under a monarchical form of government is sufficient to show the meaning of the pleader and the nationality of the plaintiff, and there is no merit in an objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, diverse citizenship existing, because plaintiff was not a citizen but a subject of the foreign power.

While under the Judiciary Act of 1891, in case of direct review on question of jurisdiction, when the record does not otherwise show how the question was raised, the certificate of the Circuit Court may be considered for the purpose of supplying such deficiency; when the elements necessary to decide the question are in the record the better practice, in every case of direct review on question of jurisdiction, is to make apparent on the record by a bill of exceptions, or other appropriate mode, the fact that the question of jurisdiction was raised, and passed on, and also the elements upon which the question was decided.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

203 U. S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

Mr. Carroll T. Bond, with whom Mr. William L. Marbury was on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The allegation of plaintiff's being a citizen of Sweden was not a sufficient allegation for the purposes of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court in a suit between plaintiff and a corporation existing under the laws of Wisconsin. Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46; Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U. S. 25, 34. If the allegations in the complaint had been sufficient, as still seems to be supposed, the denial in the first paragraph of the answer would have been sufficient to put those allegations in issue. Roberts v. Lewis, 144 U. S. 653, 657; Yokum v. Parker, 130 Fed. Rep. 770; Ballinger's Code, etc., §§ 4907, 4909.

The proof that plaintiff was "from Sweden," and "came from Sweden to Minnesota in 1903," would not be sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff. The allegations in the complaint having been denied, it would have been essential to the plaintiff's recovery that he sustain them by proof. The burden of proof would have been upon him to support them by evidence. Roberts v. Lewis, 144 U. S. 653, 657; Yocum v. Parker, 130 Fed. Rep. 770.

Mr. Walter S. Fulton and Mr. Martin J. Lund, for defendant in error, submitted:

The allegation of citizenship negatived the idea that plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Washington. Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46, distinguished.

It is no longer necessary to describe a foreign citizen as an alien. Act of March 3, 1891. This statute supersedes the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 629, relating to jurisdiction in civil suits, where an alien was a party, and it is no longer necessary to describe a party as an alien. Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U. S. 24.

If diverse citizenship is alleged, it is not put in issue by a general denial. Adams v. Shirk, 117 Fed. Rep. 801; Collins v. City of Ashland, 112 Fed. Rep. 175.