102 OLEOMARGARINE. 



In the case of Leisy v. Hardin (135 U. S., 100-124) the right to 

 import into and sell beer in original packages in the State of Iowa, in 

 the face of the local prohibitory law, was recognized and upheld. 

 After the decision in that case Congress was appealed to by the Sen- 

 ators and Representatives in Congress from States which prohibited 

 the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors, and they secured the 

 passage of an act on the 8th of August, 1890, known as the Wilson 

 Act (26 Stat., 313), which provided that upon the arrival in any State 

 or Territory of intoxicating liquors transported therein they should be 

 subject to the operation and eifect of the laws of the State or Terri- 

 tory enacted in the exercise of its police power to the same extent and 

 in the same manner as though such 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. 



In the case In re Kahrer (140 U. S. , 545) this act in reference to 

 intoxicating liquors was held to be a valid and constitutional exercise 

 of the power conferred upon Congress. 



But in the absence of Congressional legislation the right to import 

 a lawful article of commerce from one State to another continues until 

 a sale in the original package in which the article was introduced into 

 the State. (Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S., 23.) 



The friends of the pending bill now seek to place oleomargarine 

 upon the same plane upon which Congress placed intoxicating liquors. 

 The articles are entirely difl'erent. The one is recognized everywhere 

 as a proper subject of police regulation, and each State should be left 

 free to legislate upon the subject as it may see fit. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Will you permit me right here ? 



Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. A very large number of States have passed 

 laws which practically make oleomargarine a contraband article? 



Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Only a few States have passed laws making 

 liquor a contraband article. 



Mr. SPRINGER. That is true. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I simply wanted to call }^our attention to 

 that fact as you went along. 



Mr. SPRINGER. It was for the purpose of permitting the States 

 which have passed prohibitory liquor laws to have the benefit of those 

 laws that Congress passed the act of 1890 and took intoxicating liquors 

 out of the list of legitimate articles of commerce and permitted them 

 to be subject to the police powers of the States. This legislation in 

 reference to intoxicating liquors is not of a kind that is applicable to 

 oleomargarine. Oleomargarine is universally conceded to be a whole- 

 some article of food and a legitimate article of commerce. In this 

 connection I desire to state that that statement does not depend upon 

 my aifirmance or upon the affirmance of any committee of this body. 

 It has been so held by the Supreme Court of the United States, and 

 that is the law of the land until it has been reversed. Congress, there- 

 fore, has no more right to place oleomargarine under the police power 

 of the State than it has to place the manufacture and sale of woolen 

 goods, iron, or tin plate under the police power of the States, enabling 

 them thus to suppress, if they please, the manufacture of such articles. 



This brings us to the consideration of two of the provisions of the 

 Constitution which are applicable to the pending bill. The first is 



