XII OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 



ter and not to destroy the industry itself. We therefore recommend 

 legislation upon the subject which will make fraudulent sales as near 

 impossible as laws can provide. 



We have omitted reference heretofore to the first section of the 

 pending bill. This section has for its object the placing of oleomarga- 

 rine under the police laws of the several States, notwithstanding its 

 introduction into a State in the original package. This provision is 

 for the purpose of avoiding the effect of the ruling of the Supreme 

 Court of the United States in the case of Schollenberger v. Pennsyl- 

 vania, reported in 171 U. S., 1-30. The opinion of the Supreme 

 Court in that case was to the effect that a lawful article of commerce 

 an not be wholly excluded from itnportion into a State from another 

 State where it was manufactured. It was conceded in that opinion 

 that a State has power to regulate the introduction of any article, 

 including a food product, so as to insure purity of the article imported, 

 but that such police power does not include the total exclusion even of 

 an article of food. 



The States may provide for a reasonable inspection of all food prod- 

 ucts imported into them, but the object of this legislation must be 

 inspection and not prohibition of the traffic. It is true that Congress, 

 in 1890, passed an act which placed intoxicating liquors under the 

 police power of the States; but oleomargarine, which is a wholesome 

 and nutritious food, ought not to be treated in the same manner that 

 the law r regards intoxicating liquors. The States should not be per- 

 mitted by Congress to interfere in its sale, and especially should Con- 

 gress refuse to place the article subject to the laws of the States, which 

 might exclude its manufacture or sale entirely. The States my inspect 

 oleomargarine for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was free from 

 adulterants or unwholesome ingredients; but Congress should not 

 recognize the right of a State to exclude it from importation and sale 

 therein, so long as it is conceded to be nutritious as an article of food. 



The proposed bill is not a revenue measure. It is not for the pur- 

 pose of raising revenue or reducing surplus revenue. In fact, in no 

 sense is it a measure resting for its authority upon the taxing power 

 of the Government. Its object is to prevent competition between two 

 home industries by building up the one and destining the other. 

 Such use of the taxing power of the Government is an abuse which 

 should not be encouraged or even tolerated for a moment. The prece- 

 dent will open wide the door for all manner of vexatious schemes and 

 instigate selfish greed to demand legislation involving every conceiv- 

 able interference of Government with private interests. It is an 

 effort to so frame our internal-revenue laws that one class of home 

 producers will be protected from competition with another class of 

 home producers. While our Government has adopted the policy of 

 protecting home producers against foreign producers of the same 

 kinds of articles, there can be no excuse or justification for interfering 

 among our own citizens by aiding one industry at the expense and to 

 the injury or destruction of another. This policy would tend to 

 destroy all benefits which consumers receive from improved processes 

 of production, from labor-saving machinery, and from the results of 

 invention. By such means all progress could be arrested and mankind 

 could be deprived of the blessings which modern science and genius 

 are securing to the world. 



The taxing power of the Government can not be used for any object 



