OLEOMARGARINE. 99 



legislative fancy or taste would be boundless. It might equally as 

 well provide that it should be colored blue or red or black. Nor do 

 we see that it would be limited to the use of coloring matter. It 

 might, instead of that, provide that the article should only be sold if 

 mixed with some other article which, while not deleterious to health, 

 would nevertheless give out a most offensive smell. If the legislature 

 have the power to direct that the article shall be colored pink, which 

 ctin only be accomplished by the use of some foreign substance that 

 will have that effect, we do not know upon what principle it should be 

 confined to discoloration, or why a provision for an offensive odor 

 would not be just as valid as one prescribing the particular color. The 

 truth is, however, as we have above stated, the statute in its necessary 

 effect is prohibitory, and therefore, upon the principle recognized in 

 the Pennsylvania cases, it is invalid." 



The same justices dissented in this as in the other case. 



I now invite the attention of the committee to the provisions of the 

 pending bill. The first section of the bill is, in my opinion, the most 

 objectionable of any of its provisions. It is as follows: 



' ' Be it enacted, etc. , That all articles known as oleomargarine, but- 

 terine, imitation butter, or imitation cheese, or any substance in the 

 semblance of butter or cheese not the usual product of the dairy and 

 not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, trans- 

 ported into any State or Territory, and remaining therein for use, 

 consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon the arrival within the 

 limits of such State or Territory, be subject to the operation and effect 

 of the laws of such State or Territory enacted into the exercise of its 

 police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though 

 such articles or substances had been produced in such State or Terri- 

 tory, and shall not be exempt therefrom -by reason of being introduced 

 therein in original packages or otherwise: Provided, That nothing in 

 this act shall be construed to permit any State to forbid the manufac- 

 ture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form and in 

 such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free 

 from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." 



This is for the purpose of getting around the decisions of the Supreme 

 Court in the Leisy Case and in the Schollenberger Case, which held dis- 

 tinctly that you could not prevent an original package from going into 

 a State and being sold in the original package to a consumer. If this 

 provision should become a law, it would breathe the breath of life into 

 the statutes of 32 States of the Union, which are now practically void by 

 reason of the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States 

 in the Schollenberger Case. A synopsis of these laws is given in the 

 hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture on the Grout 

 bill, pages 11 to 17. 



The attention of this committee is called to some of these State 

 enactments. 



The law of California prohibits the manufacture or sale of oleomar- 

 garine colored to imitate butter. Patrons of eating places shall be 

 notified if substitutes for butter or cheese are used; and its use in State 

 charitable institutions is prohibited. 



In Connecticut the law prohibits the sale of oleomargarine unless 

 free from coloring matter which causes it to look like butter. The 

 use of imitation butter in public eating places, bakeries, etc. , must be 

 made known by signs. 



