106 OLEOMARGARINE. 



the Constitution would have so provided. But it did not so provide. 

 As was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Robbins v. Shelby 

 Taxing District (120 U. S., 489), "that, in the matter of interstate 

 commerce, the United States are but one country and are and must be 

 subject to one system of regulation and not to a multitude of systems. 

 The doctrine of the freedom of that commerce, except as regulated by 

 Congress, is so firmly established that it is unnecessary to enlarge 

 further upon this subject." 



That is the decision of the Supreme Court that under the commerce 

 clause Congress alone can pass the laws that are to regulate the inter- 

 state and foreign commerce, and it can not delegate that power to the 

 States. Is there a delegation of such power in section 1 of this bill? 



The right to pass the first section of the pending bill can not be 

 derived from the commerce clause of the Constitution. In fact, there 

 is no power given in the Constitution, either directly or by implication, 

 for the passage of this first section. Its passage will be, in my opinion, 

 a plain and flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States. 

 There is no warrant in the Constitution for such legislation, and if 

 enacted into law the courts must hold it null and void. 



So much for the first section of the bill. 



The second and only other section of the bill is as follows: 



" That after the passage of this act the tax upon oleomargarine, as 

 prescribed in section 8 of the act approved August 2, 1886, and enti- 

 tled ' An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating 

 the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,' 

 shall be one-fourth of 1 cent per pound when the same is not colored 

 in imitation of butter; but when colored in imitation of butter the tax 

 to be paid by the manufacturer shall be 10 cents per pound, to be lev- 

 ied and collected in accordance with the provisions of said act. " 



This section invokes the taxing power of the Constitution not for 

 the purpose of raising revenue, but for the purpose of suppressing the 

 manufacture of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. 



I want it distinctly understood that I have not contended, and I do 

 not know that anyone else contends, that the object of this bill is to 

 suppress the manufacture of uncolored oleomargarine, but all of the 

 gentlemen opposing the bill and favoring it concede that it will work 

 to the destruction of the manufacture of oleomargarine colored in the 

 semblance of butter, and that is the object of the bill. 



The eighth section of Article I of the Constitution is as follows: 



u The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, 

 imports, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common 

 defense and general welfare of the United States." 



The "general welfare" to which reference is made is that welfare 

 which is provided for and set forth in the text of the Constitution 

 itself, and not that welfare which is left to the discretion of the law- 

 making power. This is universally conceded. To hold otherwise 

 would destroy all the limitations and restrictions of the Constitution. 

 The power, then, to lay and collect taxes, duties, and imposts is given 

 in order to provide the means u to pay the debts and provide for the 

 common defense and general welfare of the United States," as author- 

 ized in the Constitution. Will any Senator or Representative in Con- 

 gress say, upon his oath, that this section of the pending bill is being 

 enacted u to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and 

 general welfare" of the United States ? " Is this proposed taxation for 



