124 OLEOMARGARINE. 



well to let Minnesota (not in those words, but in principle) say to Ver- 

 mont, " Because you exclude our wheat we will exclude your dairy 

 products," because the States of the Union might then build fences 

 around themselves, to the detriment of the general welfare. u We will 

 put the power in the National Government;" in other words, fix it 

 so that a State can not say that a citizen outside of the State shall not 

 have the same commercial rights her citizens do inside. But I do not 

 believe it was ever contemplated for one moment that that power, 

 granted in that way, should work out this result that people in outside 

 States should have rights in the markets of a State that the citizens 

 inside do not have. 



These States have done what they have done by virtue of the police 

 power. What is that? It is the power left in the State to legislate 

 along lines to protect the health, the morals, and the lives of the peo- 

 ple. Now, by virtue of the police power, and under no other pretext 

 whatever, have these 33 States passed such laws. They now say to the 

 Congress of the United States, in one instance where those police laws 

 have been outraged, " You have remedied the difficulty by saying that 

 the original package shall be subject to the same laws as goods made 

 within the States. We come to you by virtue of the decision in In re 

 Rahrer and by virtue of the action of the Wilson bill, and say, do like 

 wise relative to oleomargarine. We are not asking you to aid us to 

 do something to a person outside of our State that we do not do to our 

 own citizens. We simply say to you, we do not allow our citizens to 

 be imposed upon by our own citizens; help us so that people outside 

 can not impose upon our citizens." 



Now, if the argument which I propose to present to you later, rela- 

 tive to the healthf ulness of these goods, is sound, for I propose to give 

 you instances showing that this business thrives upon fraud, then it 

 seems to me that the argument is almost conclusive that you should 

 help us as asked in this bill. The Plumley decision was simply a 

 majority decision, and we were afraid that the conditions might even- 

 tually be such that it would be reversed. We had our eyes upon the 

 compass in all directions to see what would come next, and out of 

 Pennsylvania came a case known as the Schollenberger case. It went 

 to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the oleo people 

 secured a favorable decision in that case. What was the difference 

 between the two cases ? I know it was heralded all over the country 

 that it was a reversal of the Plumley case, but I say to you it was 

 not, in my judgment, notwithstanding the fact that certain judges in 

 certain localities have so said to the contrary. It was an original 

 package of oleomargarine, but it did not appear to the court that it 

 was colored in imitation or semblance of butter. That element was in 

 the Plumley case, but not in the Schollenberger case, making it plainly 

 a different case. My friend seems to think that the Schollenberger 

 case reversed the other case, but I read from Mr. Justice Peckham's 

 opinion: 



4 ' Nor is the question determined adversely to this view in the case 

 of Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 462. The statute in that case 

 prevented the sale of this substance in imitation of yellow butter pro- 

 duced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same, and the 

 statute contained a proviso that nothing therein should be 4 construed 

 to prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate or 

 distinct form and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its 



