OLEOMABGAEINE. 623 



If this principle of legislation is once conceded, where will it end? If New York 

 can oxclud. oleomargarine from the markets of the State because it comes into com- 

 petition with its dairy interests, why should not Vermont prohibit the sale of beet 

 sugar to protect its maple-sugar crop? Why should not West Virginia prohibit the 

 sale of all anthracite coal " designed to take the place of bituminous coal as an article 

 of fuel," or Louisiana prohibit the use of beet sugar or glucose or saccharine because 

 these may be used as substitutes for the local product of cane sugar? Is Congress 

 ready to affirm that in order to protect the business and products of one State the 

 business and products of another State may be excluded? 



Upon this point Swift & Co. can be directly answered by an extract 

 from Justice Harlan's decision in the case of Plumley v. Massachusetts, 

 previously referred to. Says this honored jurist, referring to the rights 

 of the State to regulate and control the oleomargarine traffic, then 

 under review : 



If there be any subject over which it would seem the States ought to have plenary 

 control and the power to legislate in respect to which it ought not to be supposed 

 was intended to be surrendered to the General Government, it is the protection of 

 the people against fraud and deception in the sale of food products. Such legisla- 

 tion may, indeed, indirectly or incidentally affect trade in such products transported 

 from one State to another State. But that circumstance does not show that laws of 

 the character alluded to are inconsistent with the power of Congress to regulate 

 commerce among the States. 



Let us, however, look at the illustrations cited by Swift & Co. in a 

 manner consistent with this question. Does any one doubt that if 

 citizens of West Virginia should so manipulate its bituminous coal as 

 to make it an exact imitation of the anthracite of Pennsylvania, using 

 a polish to give it luster and a mold to imitate the anthracite form, and 

 the Pennsylvania people found that citizens of that State were, daily 

 purchasing this bituminous coal for anthracite and at anthracite prices, 

 that the State of Pennsylvania should have the legal right to say that 

 West Virginia's bituminous coal must not be so manipulated as to 

 cause the citizens of Pennsylvania to think it anthracite and thus be 

 defrauded? Should officers be stationed at every coal pile to see that 

 every customer was advised that the fuel which resembled anthracite 

 was a cheaper and less serviceable grade? And would the people of 

 Pennsylvania accept as an excuse for the counterfeiting of anthracite 

 coal such reasons as are put forward by the oleomargarine makers in 

 justification of coloring their product to resemble butter that it is 

 absolutely necessary for the purpose of pleasing the eye? 



The trouble with Swift & Co.'s comparisons are that they endeavor 

 to compare things that differ. They are now preparing to make an 

 onslaught against the laws of the State of New York and endeavor to 

 force their counterfeit product into the only State in the country which 

 has protected its people with any degree of success with State laws, 

 but which has been done at enormous expense to the State and at the 

 expense of eternal vigilance, necessitating at times the dispatching of 

 agents as far west as Illinois to seek out violators and expose them to 

 the internal-revenue department. 



Thus far, with the exceptions of two Federal lower courts, the rights 

 of the State to exclude oleomargarine made in semblance of butter has 

 never been denied. But the lack of specific legislation upon this sub- 

 ject has befogged some of the tribunals, and nothing but direct legis- 

 lation to the point will clear the matter up and protect the laws of the 

 States. 



The States whose laws are thus threatened are such ones as have 

 provided for the powerful State machinery and support to enforce their 

 laws against the invaders. This provision alone would not greatly 

 benefit such States as Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, and 

 other States where the reterl dealers always amenable to State laws, 



