398 OLEOMARGARINE. 



when it comes into the State than it has to pass a law requiring every 

 man who crosses the State to wear a plug hat. 



Senator ALLEN. Suppose there was something entering into the coin 

 position of the hat which was deleterious, which would make it inju- 

 rious, or suppose it was believed to be so, to the extent that the legis- 

 lative department should pass a law that that material should not be 

 used in a hat. Is not that a legislative question? 



Mr. DAVIS. I grant it. That is not this case. Nobody says that 

 oleomargarine coloring is deleterious. 



Senator ALLEN. It seems to me it covers this case pretty closely. 



Mr. DAVIS. I grant you that a State has the right to pass any inspec- 

 tion law to see that articles that contain deleterious substances are 

 not imposed upon its citizens ; but beyond that it has not the right to 

 go. I agree with the gentlemen here who are willing to have this sub- 

 stitute bill pass. Pass the most stringent inspection laws you please, 

 but let us sell oleomargarine as oleomargarine, and do not tell us that 

 we can not sell it at all. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Will you pardon an interruption? 



Mr. DAVIS. Certainly. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I think I can throw a good deal of light on the decision 

 in the Schollenbarger case. 



Mr. DAVIS. Excuse me. If you are going into that, I decline to be 

 interrupted. I thought you wanted to ask me a question, and I am 

 prepared to answer that. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I will ask you a question, then. 



Mr. DAVIS. What is it? 



Mr. KNIGHT. What was the Schollenbarger case? 



Mr. DAVIS. An original-package case. 



Mr. KNIGHT. What kind of oleomargarine was it, colored or uncolored ? 



Mr. DAVIS. It is immaterial whether it was colored or uncolored. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I think it is quite material. 



Mr. DAVIS. Excuse me. The Supreme Court decision was point 

 blank that the Pennsylvania law which had been previously sustained 

 in the Powell case, so far as it affected interstate commerce and oleo- 

 margarine in the original package, was an invasion of the interstate- 

 commerce powers of Congress, and therefore to that extent unconstitu- 

 tional. It does not make any difference whether it was colored or 

 uncolored. Their decision flatly was that an attempt to deal with oleo- 

 margarine coming from an outside State in an original package was an 

 invasion of the constitutional powers of Congress. 



Mr. KNIGHT. But did not the Schollenbarger case distinguish between 

 colored and uucolored margarine? 



Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; it did not, and you gentlemen have but to lead 

 that opinion to see that it is a plump decision against that much of the 

 Pennsylvania law as interfered with oleomargarine in original pack- 

 ages. Since then Pennsylvania has changed its law. It no longer 

 prevents the manufacture of oleomargarine; and it only prohibits the 

 manufacture of oleomargarine that is colored or contains ingredients 

 making it look like butter. I had the pleasure of defending a num- 

 ber of gentlemen engaged in this enterprise in the western part of 

 Pennsylvania last fall, and the very intelligent judge who presided 

 ruled to the jury that if the coloring was incident to an ingredient 

 that entered into it, that provision of the Pennsylvania law was incon- 

 sistent with itself, unreasonable, and not to be observed, and the men 

 were acquitted, as they should have been. 



Mr. KNIGHT. How about the upper courts? 



