2IO AGRICULTURE OF MAINE. 



The cases above referred to have been given chronologically. 

 In 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down 

 a decision in the case of Collins v. Neiv Hampshire, 171 U. S. 

 30. The following are the facts in the case: The State of 

 New Hampshire passed a measure providing that oleomar- 

 garine, or substantially that, when sold in the state should be 

 colored pink. The power so to do had been upheld in a case in 

 the Minnesota Circuit Court, entitled Armour Packing Co. 

 V. Snyder, reported in 84 Fed., Rep. 136, in which the Court 

 held: 



"It is within the police power of a state to provide by statute 

 that articles sold therein as a substitute for butter shall be 

 colored pink, to "prevent the deception of purchasers and con- 

 sumers." 



In Collins v. Ne-,v Hampshire, the court held : 



"Where the state has not the power to absolutely prohibit the 

 sale of an article of commerce, like oleomargarine in its pure 

 state, it has no power to provide that such article shall be 

 colored, or rather discolored, by adding a foreign substance to 

 it, in the manner described in the New Hampshire statute. 



"That such an act is an unlawful restriction of commerce. 



"The statute of New Hampshire making it unlawful to sell 

 or keep in possession, with intent to sell in said state, any oleo- 

 margarine unless it is of a pink color, when applied to oleo- 

 margarine imported into that state from another state for sale, 

 is invalid." 



Litigation Under State Laws. 



On February 26, 1901, a decision was handed down in the 

 State of Maine in the case of the State v. Rogers, reported in 

 95 Maine, page 94, in which was involved the question of con- 

 stitutional law and police power in relation to a statute con- 

 cerning oleomargarine. This was an indictment against the 

 defendant for selling a quantity of "a certain substance made in 

 imitation of yellow butter, and not made exclusively or wholly 

 of cream or milk." The trial court instructed the jury, against 

 the defendant's request, that the statute was constitutional anrl 

 valid, 



"and that it was not incumbent on the government to show 

 that the defendant had knowledge that the substance sold by 



