OLEOMARGAKINE. 97 



adulterated does not afford a foundation to absolutely prohibit its 

 introduction into the State. Although the adulterated article may 

 possibly, in some cases, be injurious to the health of the public, yet 

 that does not furnish a justification for an absolute prohibition. A 

 law which does thus pronibit the introduction of an article like oleo- 

 margarine within the State is not a law which regulates or restricts 

 the sale of articles deemed injurious to the health of the community, 

 but is one which prevents the introduction of a perfectly healthful 

 commodity merely for the purpose of in that way more easily prevent- 

 ing an adulterated and possibly injurious article from being introduced. 

 We do not think this is a fair exercise of legislative discretion when 

 applied to the article in question." 



At this point, the hour of 12 having arrived, the committee took a 

 recess until half past 2 o'clock, at which time it reassembled. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Judge, you may proceed. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when the committee 

 took a recess 1 was reviewing the decision of the Supreme Court in 

 what is known as the Schollenberger Case. 1 had quoted some of the 

 passages in that opinion and there are one or two others to which I 

 ask}^our attention. On pages 22 and 23 of the volume from which I 

 was quoting (171 U. S.) is this reference to the very celebrated case 

 decided by the Supreme Court a few years ago, known as the Original 

 Package Case. That case is reported in 135 U. S., page 100, and is the 

 case of Leisy v. Hardin. The Supreme Court of the United States, 

 referring to that case, in the Schollenberger opinion, says: 



"The case of Leisy v. Hardin (135 U. S., 100, 124) went a step 

 further than the Bowman Case and held that the importer had the 

 right to sell in a State into which he brought the article from another 

 State in the original packages or kegs, unbroken and unopened, not- 

 withstanding a statute of the State prohibiting the sale of such articles 

 except for the purposes therein named and under a license from the 

 State. Such a statute was held to be unconstitutional as repugnant 

 to the clause of the Constitution granting power to Congress to regu- 

 late commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. 

 Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, in speaking for the court, said: 4 Under our 

 decision in Bowman v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway, they had 

 the right to import this beer into that State ; and in the view which 

 we have expressed, they had the right to sell it, by which act alone it 

 would become mingled in the common mass of property within the 

 State. Up to that point of time, we hold that in the absence of Con- 

 gressional permission to do so the State had no power to interfere, 

 by seizure or any other action, in prohibition of importation and sale 

 by the foreign or nonresident importer.' The right of the State to 

 prohibit the sale in the original package was denied in the absence of 

 any law of Congress upon the subject permitting the State to prohibit 

 such sale. There is no such law of Congress relating to articles like 

 oleomargarine. Such articles are therefore in like condition as were 

 the liquors in the cases above cited. 



"Subsequent to the decision in the Leisy case and on the 8th of 

 August, 1890, chapter 728, 26 Stat. L., 313, Congress passed an act, 

 commonly known as the Wilson Act, which provided that upon the 

 arrival in any State or Territory of the intoxicating liquors trans- 

 ported therein they should be subject to the operation and effect of the 

 laws of the State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police 

 power to the same extent and in the same manner as though such 



