In dealing with this contention we assume, but do not decide, that the Oklahoma penal statutes relating to intoxicating liquor were put in force in the Reservation as Federal statutes by the Assimilative Crimes Act; neither do we decide that, if importation into the Reservation would violate a Federal statute, injunctive relief against the unlawful acts of the enforcement officers should be denied. Cf. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128; Bowman v. Chicago Northwestern Ry. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 8 S.Ct. 1062, 31 L.Ed. 700; McFarland v. American Sugar Refg. Co., 241 U.S. 79, 84, 85, 36 S.Ct. 498, 60 L.Ed. 899; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267, 268; McCanless v. Graham, 177 Tenn. 57, 146 S.W.2d 137, 138. Sec. 4, ch. 153, O.S.L. 1933, 37 O.S.A. § 31, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to have or keep in excess of one quart of intoxicating liquor "whether such liquor be intended for the personal use of the person so having and keeping the same or not."

There was no evidence that the automobile had stopped in Alabama or that the driver intended to stop it, until the officers apprehended it. The vehicle was not subject to seizure while passing through this State from Mississippi to Georgia. Barnett v. State ex rel. Milner, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267; Moragne v. State, 200 Ala. 689, 77 So. 322, L.R.A. 1918E, 948; Hill v. State, 27 Ala. App. 573, 176 So. 805; Id., 235 Ala. 8, 176 So. 806; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 305 U.S. 391, 59 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed. 243. Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Maury D. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Provisions of statutory law in Alabama in regard to transportation of intoxicating liquors and the confiscation or condemnation of intoxicating liquors being illegally transported and the vehicle transporting same are not applicable to interstate transportation of intoxicating liquors through the State of Alabama from one state to another. Moragne v. State, 200 Ala. 689, 77 So. 322, L.R.A. 1918E, 948; Hill v. State, 27 Ala. App. 573, 176 So. 805; Id., 235 Ala. 8, 176 So. 806; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267; Quarterly Report of the Attorney General 1941 Vol. XXIII, p. 241; 15 C.J.S., Commerce, § 99, p. 452. The carriage, movement and possession of prohibited liquors by an officer or agency of the law in the execution of the law is not within the prohibition of Alabama statutes as to the carriage or possession of prohibited liquors.

Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and in order to meet the constitutional requirements for an arraignment the defendant must be brought before the Court and the indictment read to him and he be given a chance to plead guilty or not guilty before the jury is impanelled. Woodard v. State, 42 Ala. App. 552, 171 So.2d 462, 14 Am.Jur. — Criminal Law, Sec. 249; State v. Walton, 13 L.R.A. (WS) 811; Howard v. State, 165 Ala. 18, 50 So. 954; Code of 1940, Title 15, Sec. 278-288. Transportation of intoxicating liquors from one state through another state is within the protection of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and such transportation is not subject to state interference, regardless of whether state to which liquor is being shipped prohibits sale or traffic in such liquors. Alcohol Div. of Dept. of Finance and Taxation of Tenn. v. State Ex Rel. Strawbridge; Ford v. State Ex Rel. Strawbridge; Lauderdale v. State Ex Rel. Strawbridge, 258 Ala. 384, 63 So.2d 358; Barnett v. State Ex Rel. Milner, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267; Moragne v. State, 200 Ala. 689, 77 So. 322, L.R.A. 1918E, 948; Hill v. State, 27 Ala. App. 573, 176 So. 805; Howard Boyce Edison v. State Ex Rel. Arthur Burns, Solicitor, 263 Ala. 281, 82 So.2d 218. MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

I. The judgment is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. American Express Co. v. Beer, 107 Miss. 548, 65 So. 575; American Express Co. v. Miller, 104 Miss. 248, 61 So. 306; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267; Ryals v. Douglas, 205 Miss. 695, 39 So.2d 211; Tombigbee Electric Power Assn. v. Gandy, 216 Miss. 444, 62 So.2d 567; Amendment XXI, United States Constitution; 30 Am. Jur., Intoxicating Liquors, Secs. 48, 50; Annos. 27 A.L.R. 108, 138 A.L.R. 1153. II. The trial judge erred in sustaining the objection of the State to the introduction of the invoices, five in number, showing that the shipment of liquor was sold by Muse Brothers to the appellant, and consigned to Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Hubert E. Nolin, Esq., County Solicitor, of Greenville, for Appellant, cites: As to error on part of Trial Judge inreversing and setting aside the conviction on the groundsthat the transaction constituted interstate commerce: 179 S.C. 45, 183 S.E. 582; 144 S.C. 5, 142 S.E. 62; 180 S.C. 433, 186 S.E. 375; 49 F. Supp. 693; 201 S.C. 68, 21 S.E.2d 400; 168 F.2d 841 cert. denied 93 L.Ed. 429. Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd Mann, of Greenville, for Respondent, cite: As to the alleged contrabandliquor not being imported into South Carolina for deliveryor use therein: 15 C.J.S. 452, Commerce, Sec. 99; 9 So.2d 267; 169 Va. 857, 192 S.E. 795; 55 S.C. 207, 31 S.E. 362; 111 S.C. 198, 97 S.E. 58; 192 S.C. 1, 5 S.E.2d 291; 187 F.2d 285, cert. denied 72 S.Ct. 41, 342 U.S. 822, 96 L.Ed. 621, rehearing denied 72 S. Ct. 105, 342 U.S. 874, 96 L.Ed. 657. April 17, 1958.

(6) Senate Bill 110, 65th General Assembly of Missouri (Mo. R.S.A., Secs. 4884, 4917, 4932), places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 325 U.S. 450, 89 L.Ed. 1725; United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 U.S. 293, 65 S.Ct. 661, 89 L.Ed. 951; Barnett v. State ex rel. Milner, 9 So.2d 267; Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 64 S.Ct. 464, 321 U.S. 131; 20 Am. Jur., sec. 211, pp. 208-9-10; 1 General Statutes of North Carolina 1943, Ch. 18, Sec. 18-2; State ex rel. Thompson v. Harris, 355 Mo. 176, 195 S.W.2d 645; United States v. Colorado etc. Assn., 47 F. Supp. 160; Secs. 1 and 2. Twenty-first Amendment, Constitution of the United States; Sec. 8, Art. I, Constitution of the United States; McCanless v. Graham, 177 Tenn. 57, 146 S.W.2d 137; State v. Hall, 30 S.E.2d 158, 224 N.C. 314; Haumschilt v. State, 221 S.W. 196; Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 82 L.Ed. 1502, 58 S.Ct. 1009; United States v. Gudger, 249 U.S. 373, 39 S.Ct. 323, 63 L.Ed. 653; Duckworth v. State, 148 S.W.2d 656, 201 Ark. 1123; Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 137 F.2d 274; Woodward v. Bush, 282 Mo. 163, 220 S.W. 839; Alcohol Beverage Control Act, Code of Virginia 1950. Title 4, Secs. 1-98; Senate Bill 110, 65th General Assembly of Missouri; Sec. 38, Title 37, Okla.

It is not to be presumed that the authority of the A.B.C. Board will be arbitrarily used; but in the event that it is abused, a person feeling himself aggrieved may seek judicial relief in the courts. In support of their contention that the regulations of the Board impose a burden upon interstate commerce, the appellants cite the recent case of Barnett v. State (Ala), 9 So.2d 267. The Alabama court did not have before it for decision statutes or regulations involving the questions here raised. In that case, it was held that the Twenty-first Amendment to the Federal Constitution did not authorize the seizure and condemnation of liquors and transporting vehicles under existing Alabama statutes, where such liquors were being transported through Alabama to another State for disposition in violation of the laws of the latter State.