TENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART IX 401 



This state has a law Avhich prohibits the sale of oleomargarine 

 "having a yellow color," whether it derives that color from its in- 

 gredients or from some artificial sonrce. The Snpreme Court, in 

 the case State vs. Armour Packing Co., in the following words, 

 which were the instructions of the trial judge, interprets this 

 phrase : 



You will observe that the change in the indictment is not for coloring 

 imitation butter, nor for selling it without it being marked as required, 

 but it is for unlawfully selling it, it having a yellow color. The statute 

 as applied to this charge prohibits the selling of imitation butter, or sub- 

 stitute for butter, having a yellow color. The words "yellow color" here 

 used means the natural yellow color of butter made from milk, or cream 

 of cows, without any coloring matter having been added thereto. If you 

 find that the defendant sold the firkin and its contents * * * and if 

 you find that the substance is a substitute for butter, you will then de- 

 .termine whether or not it is of a yellow color, as herein defined to you; 

 and this you will determine from your own knowledge, experience or ob- 

 servation, whether the contents of the firkin of imitation butter or sub- 

 stitute for butter in evidence is of a yellow color — that is, of a natural 

 color of butter made from milk or cream from cows. 



Commenting the Supreme Court says further: The question propounded 

 to the expert as to whether the substance sold bore the yellow color of 

 true butter was not a matter of expert evidence. The law was not enacted 

 for experts but for the common people, who might be deceived by the 

 appearance of the substitute. Moreover, the product itself was introduced 

 in evidence, and was before the jury. Every one is presumed to know 

 the color of an article which is in such general use as butter, and as to 

 whether or not an article intended as a substitute therefor bears the yellow 

 color of true butter. Liability to fraud and deceit was the fundamental 

 thought in the minds of the legislature. 



From the foregoing it will be seen that there is still much *'un- 

 colored" oleomargarine which nevertheless is of such a shade of 

 yellow as to resemble butter and that the sale of it violates the 

 laAv of this state. Further that the question of the depth of the 

 shade permitted to be used in oleomargarine is only that which 

 does not permit the product to have the yellow color of any butter 

 that might be made from milk or cream of cows. 



Heretofore the makers of oleomargarine have sent into this state 

 a product that is nearly or quite white but each year the product 

 increases a little in yellow shade, apparently, and every year there 

 is a considerable amount of oleomargarine found in this state that 

 is of a high yellow color. The attempt seems to be to get the righ- 

 est possible shade of yellow color and still escape prosecution. While 



26 



