OLEOMAEGAEINE. 859 



taxing power to promote the welfare of the people through the turn- 

 ing into the Treasury profits which are now an incentive to defraud, 

 we have it here, particularly when the very use of the taxing power 

 in the original law of 1886 is and has for years been used as a basis 

 for the defeat of the enforcement of the laws of the various States, 

 through the standing such taxation has given oleomargarine as an 

 article of interstate commerce. 



A BRIEF ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF H. R. 3717, KNOWN AS THE GROUT 



BILL. 



Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Senate Committee on Agricul- 

 ture: If one will read the reports of decisions from the United States 

 Supreme Court, which constitute the controlling law of our country 

 upon the subjects therein reviewed, he will notice that the question 

 most frequently discussed, and up to this time never settled, is, What 

 constitutes a valid exercise of the police power by the several States? 

 And the necessity for the legislation contained in this bill, familiarly 

 called the Grout bill, lies in the fact that notwithstanding the police 

 features contained in nineteen sections of the act of 1886, known also 

 as the national oleomargarine law, policing by the several States, the 

 District of Columbia, and the Territories must continue so long as 

 oleomargarine is manufactured as at present and transported from 

 State to State, if the welfare of the dairy is to be considered and the 

 people protected from fraud, actual or potential. 



What can the States, Territories, and District of Columbia do, how- 

 ever, in this regard and in this direction but strike down the retailers, 

 unless Congress limits the effect of the commerce clause of the Consti- 

 tution, as provided for in section 1 of this bill, in view of the diversity 

 of opinion of the several justices of the Supreme Court? It is rather 

 the rule now than the exception, when a case involving interstate com- 

 merce and police power is before the Supreme Court, to see the jus- 

 tices disagree and a dissenting opinion filed. Examine Liesy v. Hardin, 

 135 U. S., 107 and 125; Plumley v. Mass., 155 U. S., 462 and 480; Geer 

 v. Conn., 161 U. S., 521, 535, and 542; Schollenberger v. Penna., 171 

 U. S., 6 and 25, and you will no longer marvel that judges of the United 

 States district courts entertain varying opinions, nor that the appellate 

 courts of the States are not in harmony on such questions. (In re 

 Scheitlin (Missouri), Jan. 8, 1900; in re Brundage (Minn.), Jan. 12, 

 1896, Fed. Rep., 963.) 



Therefore, in order that there may be a uniform system of laws reg- 

 ulating traffic in oleomargarine, and that force and effect may be given 

 to the enactments of thirty-two States, as well as others that may pass 

 such laws later on, and to carry out the views of Justice Harlan, as 

 expressed on pages 46T and 468, 155 U. S. the Plumley case your 

 favorable report is requested. 



I quote from Justice Harlan's opinion in the Plumley case: 



It will be observed that the statute of Massachusetts, which is alleged to be repug- 

 nant to the commerce clause of the Constitution, does not prohibit the manufacture 

 or sale of all oleomargarine, but only such as is colored in imitation of yellow butter 

 produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of such milk. If free from color- 

 ation or ingredient that "causes it to look like butter," the right to sell it "in a sep- 

 arate and distinct form, and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real 

 character," is neither restricted nor prohibited. * * * The statute seeks to sup- 

 press false pretenses and to promote fair dealing in the sale of an article of food. It 

 compels the sale of oleomargarine for what it really is, by preventing its sale for what 



