206 AGRICULTURE OF MAINE. 



like an article of food in general use, and the sale of which may, 

 by reason of such coloration or adulteration, cheat the general 

 public into purchasing that which they may not intend to buy. 



"A state enactment forbidding the sale of deceitful imitations 

 of articles of food in general use among the people does not 

 abridge any privilege secured to citizens of the United States, 

 nor, in any just sense, interfere with the freedom of commerce 

 among the several states." 



Its decision was handed down in 1894, and was reported in 

 155 U. S. 461. 



Subsequent to this, a case was made against one Schollen- 

 berger in the State of Pennsylvania, for violation of the 

 Pennsylvania statute in bringing into that state oleomargarine 

 in the original package. Defendant was convicted and his case 

 taken ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

 The facts here, as shown to the court, were the same as in the 

 Phimley case, except that it was not shown that this oleomar- 

 garine was colored to imitate butter. The court in this case, 

 held the same as is set forth in Leisy v. Hardin, briefly as fol- 

 lows : 



"An importer has the right to sell* oleomargarine in original 

 packages to consumers as well as to wholesale dealers, and the 

 exercise of this right will not be prevented by the fact that the 

 packages are suitable for retail trade. 



"The Pennsylvania statute of 1885, to the extent that it pro- 

 hibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another state, 

 and its sale in the original package as described in the special 

 verdict in this case, is invalid." 



Briefly, it is to be noted that the difference between the two 

 cases was simply the difference between prohibiting the sale of 

 an imitation or a counterfeit, and prohibiting a substance that is 

 not such. This decision was handed down in 1897 and was 

 reported in 171 U. S. i. 



In view of the decision in the Schollenherger case, it was 

 decided to put in the bill of 1902, taxing oleomargarine, a pro- 

 vision similar to that in the Wilson Whiskey bill. It was so 

 placed and is Section 2 of the present proposed bill, and reads 

 as follows : 



"That all articles known as oleomargarine, margarin, but- 

 terine, imitation, process or renovated butter, or imitation 



