OLEOMAKGARINE. 123 



question which I understood you to say was not in the case, and should 

 have been, viz, "that the goods were sent into the State in the origi- 

 nal importer's package, and that the manufacturer and importer and 

 petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the law of Con- 

 gress relative to oleomargarine," permit me to call your attention to 

 the fact that in the case as reported in 155 United States Supreme 

 Court Report, that among the statement of facts as agreed to in the 

 case appears the following statement: 



That the article sold was sent by the manufacturers thereof in the State of Illinois 

 to the petitioner, their agent in Massachusetts, and was sold by him in the original 

 package, and that in respect to the article sold the importers and the petitioners had 

 complied with all the requirements of the act of Congress regulating the sale of oleo- 

 margarine, and it was marked and distinguished by all the marks, words, and stamps 

 required of oleomargarine by the laws of this Commonwealth. 



That being so, it was an original importer's package, transported 

 from one State to another, sold there in defiance of State law; and the 

 only question was, Could the law be maintained on any principle what- 

 soever ? 



Now, prior to this time the decisions of United States courts had 

 been to the effect that articles of commerce in original packages could 

 be sold in the State irrespective of the State law except in the case of 

 In re Rahrea. The question was presented in Leisy v. Hardin as to 

 whether or not an importer's original package could be sold in a State 

 in violation of the laws passed under the police power. That case was 

 tried. It went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that 

 court said that the power to regulate commerce was one of the powers 

 granted by the Constitution to the National Government and could not 

 be exercised by a State ; and the State law was declared unconstitu- 

 tional as to the package in question. 



Immediately Mr. Wilson introduced in the House of Representatives 

 a bill providing that whenever such goods were transported from one 

 State into another they should immediately upon entering a State 

 become subject to the State laws, irrespective of the fact that they 

 were in the original package, in the same manner and to the same effect 

 as if produced in the State. The liquor men said, "We will test that; 

 that law is unconstitutional; it is a regulation of commerce between 

 the States by a State; that is a power which is given to Congress, and 

 Congress can not delegate it back to the State." That was the ques- 

 tion involved in In re Rahrer (140 U. S.). The Supreme Court of the 

 United States, in its opinion in that case, said that the enactment of 

 the so-called Wilson law was a proper exercise of the power granted 

 in the Constitution, and that the law was constitutional. 



Now, sir, any man that should question the right of the National 

 Government to exercise the power given in the first section of .this 

 bill, in view of that decision, passes my comprehension. In that decision 

 (In re Rahrer) the court practically said that the Government might, 

 by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, say to a State, " When you 

 pass a law relating to goods produced in the State, it shall apply to 

 all goods coming into the State, whether they come in original pack- 

 ages tfr not." 



I want to go back to the proposition as to why that clause was put 

 into the Constitution of the United States. A careful reading of the 

 discussion at the time it was adopted will show you that it was thought 

 at that time by the f miners of the Constitution that it would not be 



