OLEOMARGARINE. 95 



butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same." 

 In the Pennsylvania statute these words were used: "Any article 

 designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure una- 

 dulterated milk or cream from the same." Or, to narrow the distinc- 

 tion still further, in one case the words used were: u ln imitation of 

 yellow butter;" in the other, "designed to take the place of butter." 



Notwithstanding this finely drawn distinction in the meaning of the 

 two statutes in question, the entire opinion of the Supreme Court in 

 the Schollenburger case does substantially overrule the Plumley case. 

 Attention is called to the following quotations from the opinion of the 

 court in the Schollenburger case. I read from volume 171, of United 

 States Supreme Court Reports. Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the 

 opinion of the court. At the bottom of page 7 and at the top of page 

 8, the court stated as follows: 



"In the examination of this subject the first question to be consid- 

 ered is whether oleomargarine is an article of commerce. No affirma- 

 tive evidence from witnesses called to the stand and speaking directly 

 to that subject is found in the record. We must determine the 

 question with reference to those facts which are so well and univer- 

 sally known that courts will take notice of them without particular 

 proof being adduced in regard to them, and also by reference to those 

 dealings of the commercial world which are of like notoriety. 



"Any legislation of Congress upon the subject must of course be 

 regarded by this court as a fact of the first importance. If Congress 

 has affirmatively pronounced the article to be a proper subject of 

 commerce, we should rightly be influenced by that declaration." 



The court then proceeded to show that Congress had recognized it 

 as a legitimate article of commerce. The court then pointed out the 

 various provisions of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886 (26 Stat., 

 209), imposing a tax of 2 cents a pound upon oleomargarine, and con- 

 cluded its synopsis of the act with the following statement, on page 9: 



"This act shows that Congress at the time of its passage in 1886 

 recognized the article as a proper subject of taxation and as one which 

 was the subject of traffic and of exportation to foreign countries and 

 of importation from such countries. Its manufacture was recognized 

 as a lawful pursuit, and taxation was levied upon the manufacturer of 

 the article, upon the wholesale and retail dealers therein, and also upon 

 the article itself." 



The court then referred to the fact that oleomargarine was well 

 known as an article of food and is dealt in as such to a large extent 

 throughout this country and in Europe. The court quoted, with 

 approval, the following case and opinion thereon: 



"In Ex parte Scott and others the circuit court for the eastern dis- 

 trict of Virginia (66 Fed. Rep., 45), speaking by Hughes, district 

 judge, said: ' It is a fact of common knowledge that oleomargarine has 

 been subjected to the severest scientific scrutiny and has been adopted 

 by every leading government in Europe, as well as America, for use 

 by their armies and navies. Though not originally invented by us, it 

 is a gift of American enterprise and progressive invention to the 

 world. It has become one of the conspicuous articles of interstate 

 commerce and furnishes a large income to the General Government 

 annually. It is entering rapidly into domestic use, and the 



trade in oleomargarine has become large and important. The at^en- 

 tion of the National Government has been attracted to it as a source 



