OLEOMAKGAKINE. 153 



tnent showed anything at all in the presentation of these various laws 

 by the many States that have enacted them it shows this, that there is 

 necessity for national legislation in order to simplify this work and 

 make it effective throughout the United States. I think that is the 

 only conclusion that can be drawn from the argument as it was 

 presented. 



There was also the constitutional question raised as to the power of 

 Congress in certain respects. Of course, so far as the conflict with 

 the Constitution is concerned by the passage of the Grout bill, this, I 

 think, can be said: That there is nothing given back to the States that 

 they did not surrender when the interstate-commerce law was enacted; 

 and if Congress had the right to pass the interstate-commerce law, and 

 it was ratified, it surely has the right to rescind the law wholly or any 

 portion of it that Congress may see fit. I think that part of the argu- 

 ment does not hold good. 



As to the authority to tax, that is unquestioned. Congress does it 

 now in this oleomargarine matter, and it did it in a number of instances, 

 and of course that has no force. 



So far as concerns the States taking advantage of this and levying 

 a tax, that was one of the points that the judge seemed to be serious 

 about and to which he asked the committee to give serious considera- 

 tion as to the States taking advantage of this law, in case it should 

 pass, to enact revenue laws, the amount received from the tax on oleo- 

 margarine to go for the general purposes of the expenses of the State. 

 We all know that such a thing would be unconstitutional. There has 

 been no instance of it in any of the States so far, and there is no State 

 that I know of that expects to levy any tax or license upon oleomar- 

 garine, the proceeds of which will be greater than simply enough to 

 enforce the law. There was a case in North Carolina, I believe, on a 

 somewhat different question, the taxing of fertilizers in that State, in 

 which a sum was first used for the purpose of enforcing the law, and 

 then later the surplus was used for other State purposes. The Supreme 

 Court declared that that was unconstitutional and was in conflict with 

 these sections that the judge quoted yesterday; but no one contem- 

 plates doing this thing, and if anyone did do it it would be clearly 

 unconstitutional, and that would be the end of it. No harm could 

 come from it. 



I may say, further, that if they suppose that the act is unconstitu- 

 tional, then it seems to me that the judge's argument was upon the 

 wrong side. If I had been holding that position and believed that it 

 was unconstitutional, I certainly would not stand here and advocate its 

 passage; and I can not quite see how the gentleman on the other side, 

 believing it to be unconstitutional, could stand and resist its passage, 

 because the passage of the act knowing that it would be unconstitu- 

 tional would make it inoperative, and they would have secured the 

 exact thing that they seem to desire. So I think the judge's argument 

 went a little too far. 



There is another thing that was referred to, if you will permit me, 

 and it seems to me that this was the most forcible presentation of our 

 side of the question and in favor of the passage of this bill that has 

 yet been presented. That is this fact, that 32 States of this great 

 Union have passed laws regulating this traffic within their borders, 

 and to say that these States do not understand what they are about; 

 that the legislatures of all these States, acting independently and rep- 



