448 OLEOMARGARINE. 



ural butter. The object of the statute being to protect purchasers 

 against fraud and deception, the power of the legislature the court 

 said, following the previous decision in Pierce v. State (63 Md., 596), 

 was too plain to be questioned. 



In Waterbury v. Newton (21 Vroom, 534), the New Jersey supreme 

 court sustained the validity of an act that forbade the sale of oleomar- 

 garine colored with annato. In response to the suggestion that oleo- 

 margarine colored with annato was a wholesome article of food, the sale 

 of which could not be prohibited, the court said: 



If the sole basis for this statute were the protection of the public health, this 

 objection would be pertinent, and might require us to consider the delicate questions 

 whether and how far the judiciary can pass upon the adaptability of the means which 

 the legislature has proposed for the accomplishment of its legitimate ends; but, as 

 already intimated, this provision is not aimed at the protection of the public health. 

 Its object is to secure to the dairymen and the public at large a fuller and fairer 

 enjoyment of their property by excluding from the market a commodity prepared 

 with a view of deceiving those purchasing it. It is not pretended that annato has 

 any other function in the manufacture of oleomargarine than to make it a counter- 

 feit of butter, which is more generally esteemed and commands a higher price. That 

 the legislature may repress such counterfeits does not admit, I think, of substantial 

 question. Laws of like character have been frequently assailed before the courts, 

 but always without success. 



It was further held by the court that the statute of New Jersey was 

 not repugnant to the clause of the Constitution empowering Congress 

 to regulate commerce among the States, but that the package there in 

 question, and which had been brought from Indiana, became, upon its 

 delivery in Jersey City, subject to the laws of New Jersey relating gen- 

 erally to articles of that nature. (50 N. J. L., 535, 537.) 



In the case of State v. Marshall (64 N. H., 549, 551, 552), arising under 

 a statute of New Hampshire relating to the sale of imitation butter, 

 the court said : 



Butter is a necessary article of foodjof almost universal consumption ; and if an 

 article compounded from cheaper ingredients, which many people would not pur- 

 chase or use if they knew what it was, can be made so closely to resemble butter 

 that ordinary persons can not distinguish it from genuine butter, the liability to de- 

 ception is such that protection of the public requires those dealing in the article in 

 some way to designate its real character. * * The prohibition of the statute 

 being directed against imposition in selling or exposing for sale artificial compounds 

 resembling butter in appearance and flavor, and liable to be mistaken for genuine 

 butter, it is no defense that the article sold or exposed for sale is free from impurity 

 and unwholesome ingredients, and healthful and nutritious as an article of food. 



Senator ALLEN. Can you furnish the committee a copy of that brief? 



Mr. ADAMS. I can. I will submit the entire brief, which is a protest 

 of the National Dairy Union against the adulteration of food products. 



I would like also to submit some references here which I would like 

 to discuss with reference to certain points concerning the legal phase 

 of this question, but which I will not take the time to discuss. 



The references above referred to are as follows : 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW PLACING AN INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX UPON 



OLEOMARGARINE. 



The Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 AVheat., 428, says: 



" It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential 

 to the very existence of the Government, and may be legitimately exercised to the 

 utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The people give to 

 their Government the right of taxing themselves and their property; and as the exi- 

 gencies of the Government may not be limited, they prescribe no limits to the exer- 

 cise of this right, resting confidently on the interest of the legislator and on the 

 influence of the constituents over their representatives to guard them against abuse." 



Desty, in his work on taxation, says : 



" One purpose of taxation sometimes is to discourage a business, and perhaps to 

 put it out of existence, and it is taxed without any idea of protection attending the 

 burden." 



