47 5] OLEOMARGARINE LAW AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 25 1 



turned on the question as to whether or not it was in 

 conflict with the federal statute and with the constitu- 

 tional clause that delegates the power to regulate com- 

 merce among the states, to the national Congress. 



The facts in the Schollenberger case are as follows : 

 The Oakdale Manufacturing Co. manufactured oleomar- 

 garine in Providence, R. L, and complied in every re- 

 spect with the Act of Congress of Aug. 2, 1886. The de- 

 fendant in the case as agent of the Oakdale Co. was a 

 wholesale dealer in Philadelphia and sold oleomargarine 

 as such in its original package to James Anderson for 

 his own personal use. The fact that the article was not 

 butter but oleomargarine was made known to the pur- 

 chaser. The lower court entered judgment in favor of 

 the defendant. The Commonwealth appealed the case 

 to the Supreme Court of the state where the judgment 

 was reversed. The case was then brought before the 

 U. S. Supreme Court on a writ of error. 



The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania argued that oleo- 

 margarine is a newly discovered product. It is therefore 

 not in the class of universally recognized articles of com- 

 merce. The state also argued that the question of whole- 

 someness and whether it is nondeceptive, are matters for 

 the state legislature to decide; and that when the im- 

 ported article is sold by the retailer to the consumer it 

 is not in the original package within the protection of 

 the interstate commerce provision of the constitution of 

 the United States. 



Mr. Justice Peckham wrote the opinion of the court. 

 Mr. Justice Harlan, who wrote the opinion of the court 

 in the case of Powell v. Pennsylvania, dissented. 



The court held that the federal law of Aug. 2, 1886, 

 recognizes oleomargarine as a lawful article of commerce. 



