64 Seventeenth A.wial Report of the 



which makes it desirable for the trader to handle, and from the 

 further fact that the oleomargarine people have diligently spread 

 the view before the public that it can be legally sold within this 

 state. This is based upon a partially correct and partially in- 

 correct view of the statute. The reasons that are given to the 

 public for thinking they can sell the goods that are in imitation or 

 semblance of butter, providing they contain no artificial coloring 

 matter, are based upon the following conditions. 



In the year 1908, a sample of oleomargarine containing no 

 artificial coloring matter, and, so far as evidence in the court is 

 concerned, in no way imitating butter, was placed in a store in 

 New York City for sale. The sample was sold to a customer. A 

 warrant was issued by the city magistrate of the city of New 

 York, namely, Charles G. F. Wahle, for the defendant who had 

 sold the goods, namely, one Archibald McAuley. Before he 

 could be tried before this justice, a writ of habeas corpus was 

 issued authorizing the bringing of the defendant, McAuley, and 

 the magistrate, Wahle, before the court and there the question 

 was raised as to the right of arrest of this defendant. The whole 

 question was reviewed. The person suing out the writ of habeas 

 corpus insisted that there had been no violation of the law and 

 that the defendant was being wrongfully deprived of his liberty 

 under the warrant issued by the magistrate. The evidence intro- 

 duced to show this was that the defendant, McAuley, had sold a 

 small quantity of oleomargarine. It did not show that the goods 

 were in imitation or semblance of butter. The court in reviewing 

 the question finally reached the conclusion that the sale of oleo- 

 margarine plain and simple was not a violation of the Agricul- 

 tural Law; that it was not intended to prohibit such a sale; that 

 the prohibition in the statute ran against the sale of oleomar- 

 garine in imitation or semblance of butter ; that it did not appear 

 that these goods were in such form ; that if the statute was in- 

 tended to prohibit the sale of plain oleomargarine not in such 

 imitation or semblance, it would be unconstitutional, but, as a 

 matter of fact, it did not prohibit such sale. The defendant was 

 discharged. 



After this decision circular letters were issued by certain oleo- 

 margarine manufacturers and sent broadcast throughout the 



