98 OLEOMARGARINE. 



liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and that they 

 should not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein 

 in original packages or otherwise. This was held to be a valid and 

 constitutional exercise of the power conferred upon Congress." 



Senator BATE. If I understand, they did not have the right to tax it 

 until after the original package was broken, or there was a sale by the 

 importer or agent, and it became mingled with the common property 

 of that State. 



Mr. SPRINGER. When it became mingled with the common property 

 of the State it was subject to the State law then. The court continues: 



"In re Rahrer, petitioner, 140 U. S., 545. In the absence of a Con- 

 gressional legislation, therefore, the right to import a lawful article of 

 commerce from one State to another continues until a sale in the orig- 

 inal package in which the article was introduced into the State." 



This opinion will account for the effort being made by the friends of 

 this bill to secure the passage of what is known as the first section of 

 the pending bill. It is an effort to place oleomargarine within the 

 police powers of the State, the same as was done with intoxicating 

 liquors by the Wilson Act of 1890. The Supreme Court in concluding 

 its opinion upon this subject in the Schollenberger case held as follows: 



"How small may be an original package it is not necessary to here 

 determine. We do say that a sale of a 10-pound package of oleomarga- 

 rine, manufactured, packed, marked, imported, and sold under the 

 circumstances set forth in detail in the special verdict was a valid sale, 

 although to a person who was himself a consumer. We do not say or 

 intimate that this right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the 

 importer after its arrival within the State." 



And, further: 



"The right of the importer to sell can not depend upon whether the 

 original package is suitable for retail trade or not. His right to sell 

 is the same, whether to consumers or to wholesale dealers in the article, 

 provided he sells them in original packages. This does not interfere 

 with the acknowledged right of the State to use such means as may be 

 necessary to prevent the introduction of an adulterated article, and for 

 that purpose to inspect and test the article introduced, provided the 

 State law does really inspect and does not substantially prohibit the 

 introduction of the pure article, and thereby interfere with interstate 

 commerce. It can not, for the purpose of preventing the introduction 

 of an impure or adulterated article, absolutely prohibit the introduc- 

 tion of that which is pure and wholesome. The act of the legislature 

 of Pennsylvania under consideration, to the extent that it prohibits 

 the introduction of oleomargarine from another State and its sale in 

 the original package, as described in the special verdict, is invalid." 



Mr. Justice Gray and Mr. Justice Harlan dissented from this opinion. 



There is another case, following this immediately, known as the case 

 of Collins v. New Hampshire. It is reported on page 30 of the same 

 volume (171 U. S.). To that opinion I desire to call your attention, 

 for it raises and disposes of another point involved in this legislation. 

 The Supreme Court in its opinion in the Collins Case, page 34, says: 



' c If this provision for coloring the article "- 



I will state, by the way, that the New Hampshire law at that time 

 required oleomargarine to be colored pink. That was held invalid 

 "If this provision for coloring the article were a legal condition, a 

 legislature could not be limited to pink in its choice of colors. The 



