DAIRY AND SEED IMPROVEMKNf MEETINGS. 211 



him was oleomargarine or a substance 'not made exclusively and 

 wholly of milk or cream/ or to prove that there was an inten- 

 tion on his part to deceive the purchaser by selling him for 

 pure butter, a substance which resembled butter but which in 

 fact was not butter." 



"The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the case comes 

 to this court on the defendant's exceptions to these instruc- 

 tions." 



The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and said: 



The statute is not "repugnant to the interstate commerce 

 clause of the federal constitution. It is within the power of a 

 state to exclude from its markets any compound manufactured 

 in another state which has been artificially colored or adul- 

 terated and the sale of which may cheat the general public into 

 purchasing that which they may not intend to buy. The Con- 

 stitution of the United States does not secure to any one the 

 privilege of defrauding the public. Such a statute 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. 



"It is not incumbent on the government to show knowledge 

 on the part of the defendant that the compound sold by him is 

 'not made exclusively of milk or cream,' or to prove an inten- 

 tion on his part to deceive the purchaser. By the plain and 

 simple terms of the statute the act of selling such an imitation 

 of yellow butter as therein described is made to constitute the 

 ofifense. It contains no words indicative of a legislative purpose 

 to make such knowledge or intention an essential element of the 

 ofifense." 



Thus, the decision in this case in your own state is in con- 

 formity with the decision of the United States Supreme Court 

 in Pozvell v. Commomvealth of Pennsylvania, herein referred 

 to. 



On June lo, 1904, the appellate court in the State of Iowa 

 handed down a decision in a case that was brought there from 

 the Polk District Court, entitled State of Iowa v. Armour 

 Packing Co., 124 Iowa, 2>22>> in which the facts were that the 

 defendant had been indicted for the sale of a product in imita- 

 tion of butter and had been convicted. The appellate court 

 affirmed the decision of the court below and stated that the 



