190 OLEOMARGARINE. 



white, and which color would be quite as repugnant and as offensive to 

 sight in this twentieth century of culture and science as the prescribed 

 introduction of a "pink" color, and would result in a positive and 

 absolute refusal of the consumer to purchase butterine in a "white" 

 color at any price. In order to prove that my reasoning comes from 

 the most learned source, I would beg the privilege of quoting from 

 Justice Peckham, of the United States Supreme Court, in his decision 

 in the case of Collins v. The State of New Hampshire, which State had 

 enacted one of the now invalid "pink" color laws: 



He says: "Although under the wording of this statute the importer 

 is permitted to sell oleomargarine freely and to any extent, provided 

 he colors it 'pink,' yet the permission to sell, when accompanied by 

 the imposition of a condition, which, if complied with, will effectually 

 prevent any sale, amounts in law to a prohibition. 



"If this provision for coloring the article were a legal condition, a 

 legislature could not be limited to 'pink' in its choice of colors. The 

 legislative fancy or taste would be boundless. It might equally as well 

 provide that it should be colored blue, or red, or black. Nor do we 

 see that it would be limited to the use of coloring matter. It might, 

 instead of that, provide that the article should only be sold if mixed 

 with some other article, which, while not deleterious to health, would 

 nevertheless give out a most offensive smell. If the legislature has the 

 power to direct that the article shall be colored 'pink,' which can only 

 be accomplished by the use of some foreign substance that will have 

 that effect, we do not know upon what principle it should be confined 

 to discoloration, or why a provision for an offensive odor would not be 

 just as valid as one prescribing the particular color. The truth is, 

 however, as we have above stated, the statute in its necessary effect 

 is prohibitory, and, therefore, upon the principle recognized in the 

 Pennsylvania cases, it is invalid." 



Now, gentlemen, you will note from the above abstract of Justice 

 Peckham's decision that he says a legislature can not be limited to 

 "pink" in its choice of colors, and that the legislative fancy would be 

 boundless. He further states the legislature might equally as well 

 provide that it should be colored blue or red or black, and he might 

 have gone on and said "white," for it is the very commonest knowledge 

 that "white" is one of the most distinctive colors known in this age, 

 and has been from time immemorial. Justice Peckham confined him- 

 self to the mention of only three colors, because we all know that to 

 have recited the entire list of colors would have filled a book nearly the 

 size of an encyclopedia. We must, therefore, presume that by his 

 recitation of onlv three colors he meant to convey, and in fact does say, 

 that the legislative fancy or taste for colors would be boundless, and it 

 is only reasonable to presume that he meant to include a "white" color 

 as being equally as repugnant to the taste of the consumer as "pink," 

 "blue," "red," or "black." You can readily see, therefore, why the 

 astounding acrobatic performance of the dairy interests is necessary, 

 and I can plainly see concealed in all of this undue "yellow" color agi- 

 tation that a no plainer expose of their legerdemain could be given 

 than in the words of Justice Peckham, and I do not think that anj^one 

 will attempt to say that they have been a particle overdrawn. It is as 

 plain as daylight that the attempted legislation forbidding the use of 

 yellow coloring is only a subterfuge to overcome the invalid law pre- 

 scribing a "pink" discoloration, Since we are on the subject of opin- 



