96 OLEOMARGARINE. 



of revenue. Provincial prejudice against this now staple of 



commerce is natural, but a city of the size and prospects of Norfolk 

 as a world's entrepot ought not to be foremost in manifesting such a 

 prejudice."' 



Summing up on this branch of the case the court said, on page 12: 



"The article is a subject of export, and is largely used in foreign 

 countries. Upon all these facts we think it apparent that oleomarga- 

 rine has become a proper subject of commerce among the States and 

 with foreign nations. 



"The general rule to be deduced from the decisions of this court is 

 that a lawful article of commerce can not be wholly excluded from 

 importation into a State from another State where it was manufactured 

 or grown. 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 such police power does not include the total exclusion 

 even of an article of food." 



The court then reviewed the previous decisions of the Supreme 

 Court bearing on this subject. Referring to the opinion of the court 

 in Railroad Company v. Husen (95 U. S., 465, 469), the following 

 principle was asserted: 



"The court said that a State could not, under the cover of exerting 

 its police powers, substantially prohibit or burden either foreign or 

 interstate commerce. Reasonable and appropriate laws for the inspec- 

 tion of articles, including food products, were admitted to be valid; 

 but absolute prohibition of an unadulterated, healthy, and pure article 

 has never been permitted as a remedy against the importation of that 

 which was adulterated and therefore unhealthy or impure. 



-.#'* * * * 



"Conceding the fact, we yet deny the right of a State to absolutely 

 prohibit the introduction within its borders of an article of commerce 

 which is not adulterated and which in its pure state is healthful, simply 

 because such an article in the course of its manufacture may be adul- 

 terated by dishonest manufacturers for purposes of fraud or illegal 

 gains. The bad article may be prohibited, but not the pure and 

 healthy one. 



' ' In the execution of its police powers we admit the right of the 

 State to enact such legislation as it may deem proper, even in regard to 

 articles of interstate commerce, for the purpose of preventing fraud 

 or deception in the sale of any commodity, and to the extent that it 

 may be fairly necessary to prevent the introduction or sale of an adul- 

 terated article within the limits of the State. But in carrying out its 

 purposes the State can not absolutely prohibit the introduction within 

 the State of an article of commerce like pure oleomargarine. It has 

 ceased to be what counsel for the Commonwealth has termed it a newly 

 discovered food product. An article that has been openly manufac- 

 tured for nearly a quarter of a century, where the ingredients of the 

 pure article are perfectly well known and have been known for a num- 

 ber of years, and where the general process of manufacture has been 

 known for an equal period, can not truthfully be said to be a newly 

 discovered product within the proper meaning of the term as here 

 used. 



* * * * * # # 



"If properly and honestly manufactured it is conceded to be a 

 healthful arid nutritious article of food. The fact that it may be 



