DAIRY AaD seed IMPROVEMENT MEETINGS. 2(K) 



may be to suppress the manufacture of the article, and it does 

 not infringe the constitutionahty guarantee of due process of 

 law."' 



The oleomargarine people, or some of them, manufactured a 

 product containing a small quantity of a vegetable oil which 

 served to give the product a yellow shade. This, it was said, 

 was a substantial ingredient and that it could not be held to be 

 an artificial coloration. The United States Supreme Court in 

 1904. in Cliff \. United States, 195 U. S. 159, held: 



"A finding that the use of palm oil as an ingredient of oleo- 

 margarine was substantially only for coloring purposes will not 

 be disturbed on appeal, where it is based on testimony that, out 

 of a total of 160 ounces, only one and one-half ounces were 

 palm oil, and that this quantity imparted the yellow shade which 

 caused the product to resemble butter." 



A similar question was raised in the case of Moxley v. Herts, 

 216 U. S. 341. In that case the court said : 



"Where the function of a natural ingredient, such as palm 

 oil, used in manufacturing oleomargarine is so slight that it 

 probably would not be used except for its effect in coloring the 

 product so as to look like butter, the product is artificially col- 

 ored and subject to the tax of ten cents a pound." 



In 1914, the Supreme Court of the United States handed 

 down a decision in the case of Hammond Packing Co. v. Mon- 

 tana, reported in 27,7, U. S. 331, in which it held: 



"A state may forbid the manufacture of oleomargarine alto- 

 gether without violating the due process or equal protection 

 provisions of the 14th Amendment" and quote approvingly 

 Poicell V. Pciiusylz'aiiia, 12'/ U. S. 678. 



It is thus to be noted that the difference in the decisions 

 of the Nevv- York case, People v. Marx, and the Pennsylvania 

 case, Pozuell v. Conimonzvealth of Pennsylvania, lies essentially 

 in the decision of the state courts in measuring statutes with 

 their own state constitutions, but the decision of the Supreme 

 Court of the United States was to the effect that the law did 

 not contravene any provision of the National constitution. 

 Such would undoubtedly have been the decision in the New 

 York case, had the Court of Appeals of that state held the 

 law constitutional and had it gone to the United States Supreme 

 Court for a decision. 



14 



