4 OLEOMARGARINE. 



had the right to pass a law taking control of this article so soon as it 

 came into the State, the interstate clause of the Constitution to the 

 contrary notwithstanding; and that the State had the right to enforce 

 that law on the ground that this article was calculated to deceive, it 

 being made in imitation of butter. It was upon that ground that the 

 case went off in the State court, and it was upon that ground that it 

 was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 



You tnay ask, then, why do we need any statute law on the subject, 

 the Supreme Court having settled it? Here is the reason why: That 

 decision was made by a divided court, Chief Justice Fuller and two 

 associate justices dissenting from the view taken by the majority of 

 the court, the opinion having been given by Mr. Justice Harlan. It 

 has been thought for these many years this was a decision some eight 

 or nine years ago; I have forgotten the exact date of it it has been 

 thought by the dairy interests that they wanted this written in the 

 statutes of the country as well as in a Supreme Court decision, for the 

 question is very likely to arise there again, and it might result in a 

 different decision by the court. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Allow me to make a suggestion. In the Schollenber- 

 ger case, in Pennsylvania, the circuit judges some of them, at least 

 overruled or reversed the Plumley case, and it was so held in the State 

 of Minnesota by Judge Lochren. 



Mr. GROUT. That has been done by one or two circuit or district 

 judges certainly, and in some of the State courts, but I thought it 

 well to refer only to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court, not 

 wishing to take time to go into the details. It is true this decision 

 has already been brought in question by some decisions of subordinate 

 courts. 



Senator ALLEN. Let me ask a question. Did the case to which you 

 refer go off on the ground that the property, having gone into Massa- 

 chusetts and become mingled with the property there, at the end of 

 transit is subject to the police regulation of the State? 



Mr. GROUT. Precisely. It is the police power of the State which 

 gives this right to take charge of the article. 



Senator ALLEN. Do you know that there is a decision which holds 

 that Congress may abdicate its power to control interstate commerce 

 to the State? 



Mr. GROUT. Yes, sir; there is such a decision, under what is known 

 as the Wilson law. The Wilson law was passed to overcome what was 

 known as the original package decision, and there is a decision by the 

 Supreme Court in a case coming up from the State of South Carolina 

 under the constabulary act of that State, or whatever name it went by, 

 in which it is held that that power could be passed to the States. I 

 am not able now to name the case, but I have examined it. 



Senator ALLEN. Under the Iowa liquor law originally the court 

 held that liquors which went in original packages were not subject to 

 State regulation. 



Mr. GROUT. Certainly; that was the original package decision. The 

 Wilson law conferred power on the States to take charge of it. 



Senator ALLEN. Mr. Wilson introduced a bill, which became a law, 

 remitting that power to the States. Has that act itself been passed 

 upon? 



Mr. GROUT. Yes, sir; it was passed upon by the Supreme Court in 

 thejjase from South Carolina, already referred to, the opinion having 



