479] OLEOMARGARINE LAW AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 255 



from coloration, but prohibited the manufacture and sale 

 of oleomargarine in imitation of yellow butter. The 

 same idea was embodied in the law of May 29, 1901/ and 

 was passed upon by the Superior Court of the state in 

 the cases of Commonwealth v. Clewell, 49 Pennsylvania 

 Sup. Ct. 389, and Commonwealth v. Ignatavig, 49 Penn- 

 sylvania Sup. Ct. 397. In the Act approved June 5, 

 1913, 2 the tint or shade of yellow allowed in oleomarga- 

 rine is specifically defined. 



If the main provisions of the Pennsylvania law had to 

 be made less stringent in 1899, strength and vigor were 

 added to the law by the enactment of other provisions. 

 These required the payment of license fees, of $1000, 

 $500, $100, and $50, by the manufacturer, the wholesale 

 dealer, the retailer, and the hotel and restaurant keepers, 

 respectively. These fees are considerably higher than 

 the special annual taxes required by the federal law. In 

 addition to the license fees it was required that conspic- 

 uous signs be placed in places of business manufacturing 

 or selling oleomargarine. Restaurants and boarding 

 houses must also display signs. Wholesale and retail 

 packages must be very plainly marked with the word, 

 oleomargarine. James Faust, Dairy and Food Commis- 

 sioner of Pennsylvania, states that the principle of licens- 

 ing is a good one, because it locates the manufacturer 

 and dealer and makes the administration of the law less 

 difficult. He also believes that if the imitative color be 

 kept out of oleomargarine, fraud will be eliminated and 

 the price of oleomargarine will be less likely to approach 

 that of butter. " The people who want butter, get it ; 

 and those who wish oleo, get it at a price relatively much 



1 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1901, p. 327. 



2 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1913, p. 412. 



