OLEOMABGAKINE. 401 



authority of the Constitution of the United States and may not violate rights 

 secured or guaranteed by that instrument, or interfere with the execution of the 

 powers confided to the General Government. 



Moreover, in the very late case of the United States v. Collins, in 171 

 U. S., to which also Judge Springer called your attention, the case in 

 which the pink-color law of New Hampshire was declared unconstitu- 

 tional as to oleomargarine, the Supreme Court held that law unconsti- 

 tutional because, in its own words: 



"It was, in necessary effect, prohibitory" not from its language, 

 but in necessary effect prohibitory ; and the court further declared 

 hat 



In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined 

 jy its natural and reasonable effect. 



Now, as the Supreme Court says, and as the courts of this land with- 

 out exception say, we have the right to look behind the language of 

 an act to find what its meaning is and what its purpose. Let us see. 

 In the first place, I say the title of this bill shows its purpose. Its 

 title is "A bill to make oleomargarine and other imitation dairy 

 products subject to the laws of the State or Territory into which they 

 are transported, and to change the tax on oleomargarine." 



It is the judgment of the highest court of this land, and it is the 

 common knowledge of everybody who has ever given this subject as 

 much as a day's attention, that oleomargarine is not an imitation of 

 butter; that it is a substitute for butter; confessedly so, professedly so, 

 advertised as such, manufactured and sold as such. It is not an imita- 

 tion of butter. It is merely a wholesome and nutritious substitute for 

 butter. So I say that this act starts out in its very title with a mis- 

 description, which, whatever its purpose, has the effect of discrediting 

 this article and thereby putting a stigma upon its manufacture and use, 

 which clearly reveals the object of this bill. 



In the next place, I say there is no pretense in this title of any object 

 in changing the tax on oleomargarine. It is not described as a bill to 

 increase or even to raise revenue, but only as a bill to change, for some 

 unstated reason, which is the same as no reason, an existing tax. 



And again, in neither the title nor the body of the bill is any reason 

 given or even hinted at for the extraordinary action proposed by the 

 Congress of the United States in singling out of the myriad of nutri- 

 tious and wholesome products of the land a single class, which, by a 

 coincidence, which of course is purely accidental, conflicts with the per- 

 sonal interests of the promoters of this bill. 



Now, in ordinary, as I said a while ago, when a statute has become 

 the law of the land, is on the statute books, we can not go back to the 

 debates of Congress or the arguments of counsel before committees, 

 or the reports of committees, to find what the law means; but the 

 Supreme Court says, notwithstanding, that you may probe a law and 

 find if it is honest in its declared purpose, and if not, and it ought not 

 to stand, you may strike it down. Furthermore, while we are in the 

 act of making law it is eminently proper that we should take due 

 account of these considerations before oversight of them leads us into 

 making objectionable and regretable laws. 



I say, therefore, that we may look into this bill and we may find what 

 it means; and we have the right to do it notwithstanding its language. 

 We have the right to do it notwithstanding the interests that are back 

 of it. We have the right to do it, and turn the search light of honest 

 purpose on it and see what it is meant to do. I say that it has but one 

 object, and that is to crush the oleomargarine industry; and whether 

 S. Rep. 2043 26 



