Intoxicating Liquors—Ordinance Forbidding Solicitation of Orders for Liquor.—An ordinance of a town forbidding the soliciting or taking of orders for the delivery of intoxicating liquors does not conflict with the “Wyllie Local Option Law” (Stats. 1911, p. 599).

Id.—Wyllie Local Option Law—Purpose and Effect.—While the Wyllie Local Option Law constitutes a general law, in that it applies to the whole state, it does not directly, or ipso facto, operate to prohibit or restrict the sale by retail of such liquors in the state, nor , to interfere with the right, expressly granted to them by the constitution, of local legislative boards to regulate or prohibit such sale of such liquors "within the sphere of their respective jurisdictions, until the provisions of such general law have been invoked and put into practical operation by the electors themselves within such jurisdictions.

Id.—Power of Town to Regulate or Suppress Liquor Traffic.—A town which has not invoked the provisions of the Wyllie law has. plenary power to regulate or suppress, within its limits, the retail traffic in alcoholic liquors, and to adopt such measures as will effectually attain either en°d.

Id.—Power of State or Municipalities Over Liquor Traffic.—There is absolutely no restriction upon the right of a state, in the exercise of its powers of police, to deal with the business of selling intoxicating liquors by retail in any manner that it deems fit or proper. A state, or its municipalities, may prohibit the traffic in such liquors altogether, or, permitting the traffic to be carried on, may impose such conditions upon its existence as it pleases.

Id.—Ordinance Forbidding Solicitation of Orders for Liquor.—A town ordinance prohibiting the soliciting or taking of orders for the delivery of intoxicating liquors is not invalid because there is no other ordinance directly and expressly forbidding the carrying on of the liquor traffic within the town.

Id.—Orders for Delivery of Liquor Outside of Town.—Such ordinance is not unreasonable because prohibiting the taking of orders or the making of agreements within the town for deliveries of liquors without its limits.

Id.—Ordinance Invalid in Part—Rejection of Invalid Portion.—A portion of the ordinance, invalid because it forbids the taking of orders for “liquor of any kind whatever,” may be disregarded under the rule that when the part of a law or ordinance which is invalid is distinctly separable from the remainder, the latter may stand and the former be rejected.

Id.—Interstate Commerce-—Power of State to Regulate Liquor Traffic.—A state may, in the exercise of its police powers, and without offending the commerce clause of the federal constitution, regulate or control the traffic in intoxicating liquors, within its own borders, to the extent either of regulating or altogether preventing the business of soliciting proposals in such state for the purchase of such liquors, which proposals are to be consummated outside of the state, and the liquors to which such proposals relate are also situated outside the state.

Id.—Restraint of Trade—Ordinance Forbidding Liquor Traffic.—A town ordinance prohibiting the taking of orders or the making of agreements for the sale and delivery of intoxicating liquors is not invalid as in restraint of trade.