100 OLEOMARGARINE. 



In Iowa the law is practically the same as in Connecticut. The use 

 of colored oleomargarine in hotels, bakeries, etc. , must be made known 

 by signs. 



In Maryland the manufacture, sale, and use in public eating places 

 of any article in imitation of butter is prohibited. Mixtures of any 

 animal fats or animal or vegetable oils with milk, cream, or butter 

 shall be uncolored and marked with the names and percentages of 

 adulterants, and this information shall be given to purchasers. 



In New Jersey oleomargarine in imitation of pure, yellow butter 

 is prohibited. But if it is free from artificial color and in original 

 package, encircled by a wide black band bearing the name of the 

 maker, and having the name of the contents plainly branded on them 

 with a hot iron, its sale is permitted. Retail sales must be accom- 

 panied with a printed card containing ingredients and naming maker, 

 and the purchaser must also be orally informed of the character of the 

 article at the time of sale. 



In New York the manufacture of oleomargarine in imitation of but- 

 ter is prohibited, and no article intended as an imitation of butter shall 

 be colored yellow. 



In Vermont the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in imitation 

 of butter is prohibited. Imitation butter for use in public eating 

 places or for sale shall be colored pink. 



In West Virginia there is a pink-color law. 



In Wisconsin the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in imitation 

 of yellow butter is prohibited; but free from any color its sale is per- 

 mitted, but it shall not be sold as butter. Signs must be displayed in 

 selling places and on wagons, and hotels, etc., using it must notify 

 guests. Its use is not permitted in charitable or penal institutions. 



In Pennsylvania the statute- of May 21, 1885, which was pronounced 

 unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 

 Schollenberger case, has been supplemented by the act of May 5, 1899, 

 which prohibits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine made in 

 semblance of butter. The act of 1885 used the words, ' ' designed to take 

 the place of butter. " The legislature has evidently endeavored to bring 

 its statute within the ruling in the Schollenberger case, but I am inclined 

 to the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 

 Plumley v. Massachusetts (155 U. S., 462) was due to defective 

 pleadings in the case. If Plumley had in his petition alleged that, 

 at the time and place charged, he offered for sale and sold one 

 package containing 10 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured in 

 the State of Illinois and shipped to him as the agent of the man- 

 ufacturers, packed, sealed, marked, stamped, and branded in accord- 

 ance with the requirements of the act of Congress of August 2, 1SSO; 

 that said package was an original package, as required by said act, and 

 was of such form, size, and weight as is used by producers or shippers 

 for the purpose of securing convenience in handling of merchandise 

 between dealers in the ordinary course of commerce; and that said 

 form, size, and weight were adopted in good faith, and not for the pur- 

 pose of evading the statutes of Massachusetts; that at the time alleged 

 the oleomargarine sold by defendant remained in the original package 

 being the same package with seals, marks, stamps, and brands 

 unbroken in which it was packed by the manufacturers in Illinois and 

 thence transported to the city of Boston; and that said package was 

 not broken nor opened on the premises of defendant, and that as soon 



