396 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Mr. DAVIS. I am very glad you asked that question. I freely con- 

 cede that the State would; but I wish to ask your attention to the fact 

 that Congress here is proposing to submit to the tender mercies of the 

 States an article which the Supreme Court of the United States has 

 said that Congress itself has recognized as wholesome and nutritious 

 and not a fit subject of prohibition. I will show you that to a demon- 

 stration. I concede that the police power of the State can touch arti- 

 cles of food, but it must touch them for a reason. 



Justice Peckham, delivering the opinion of the court in the Schollen- 

 barger case, says, in effect : 



Congress has, by the act of 1886, recognized this as a fit subject of commerce. We 

 say, as the Supreme Court of this land, as matter of judicial notice, without any wit- 

 ness having appeared before us, that this article is wholesome and nutritious, and 

 that stays the hand of the United States from authorizing the police power of any 

 State to interfere with it. 



Mr. DOLLIVER. The legislation of 1886, I suppose, is what the 

 Supreme Court bases that statement on, that Congress has recognized 

 the article as not a fit subject for the State to exercise the police power 

 upon. 



Mr. DAVIS. As a legitimate object of commerce; yes, sir. 



Senator DOLLIVER. At the time, I recollect, that law was not sup- 

 posed to be a certificate of high moral character. 



Mr. DAVIS. That is exactly right; and I only regret that my time 

 has not enabled me to unearth an extremely clever thing that was pub- 

 lished in the Washington Post just the day after Mr. Cleveland signed this 

 bill. It was a most interesting account of a barnyard convention in 

 the lot back of the White House. It described the sensations through 

 which the President went as he listened to the cackle of the hens and 

 the lowing of the cows and overheard their discussions and their threats 

 of political punishment if he did not sign the oleomargarine bill. 

 [Laughter.] It was intensely entertaining, but I did not have time to 

 recover it. 



You have come right to the point, Senator Dolliver, and I am coming 

 back to it. I have that noted in the subsequent part of my memorandum 

 here, and I am coming back to it, but I Avill stick a pin in it right now. 

 The Supreme Court in that Schollenbarger case, speaking by Mr. Justice 

 Peckham, said, in effect: 



There has not one witness appeared to testify about the wholesomeness or the 

 nutritiousness of this article. There has not a witness appeared to tell us about the 

 constituents of it, but we take judicial notice of the fact that it has been a known 

 article of commerce for a quarter of a century. We take judicial notice of the fact 

 that in all the reports of the chemists, and in all reports of the departments of agri- 

 culture of the States and of the United States, this thing has been probed, and we 

 are bound to say, as the court of last resort and the highest judicial authority of this 

 land, that the stamp of wholesomeuess and of nutritiousness is on this article, and it 

 is a fit subject of commerce. 



Senator DOLLIVER. Do you mean that by the mere act of taxing it 

 it puts a stamp of that kind on it? 



Mr. DAVIS. No; I beg your pardon. You do not take me, Senator. 

 He did not say that. He said that the act of making it a source of 

 re venae recognized it as a fit subject of commerce. Then he added: 

 "Moreover, in addition to that, we do take judicial notice of the act that 

 it is wholesome and nutritious." 



Senator DOLLIVER. I believe that same opinion was given by one 

 justice on the subject of tobacco the other day. 



Mr. DAVIS. No; that was a speech in the House of Representatives 

 by Hon. Peter J. Otey. 



