510 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
guilty of violating the act should be fined not less than one hun- 
dred or more than three hundred dollars or be imprisoned not 
more than thirty days or both. 
Powell was indicted for selling two packages of imitation butter 
and for having in his possession for sale one hundred pounds of 
imitation butter. 
It was agreed that he sold two packages and sold them as butter- 
ine and not as genuine butter, and that both were stamped on the 
lid in Roman letters half an inch long ‘‘ Oleomargarine Butter.’’ 
Powell offered to prove by Prof. Hugo Blangk that the latter saw 
the substance in the two packages made; that it was from pure 
animal fats, was clean and wholesome ; that it contained the same 
elements as natural butter except that the latter has from three to 
seven per cent. butterine and the manufactured article only from 
one to two and a half; that the only effect of the additional 
butterine was to impart flavor and that the article sold was a 
healthful and nutritious article of food, as wholesome as butter from 
pure milk or cream. 
He also offered to show that he was in the grocery business ; 
that the two packages were a part of a large quantity of the article 
which he had on hand when the law was adopted and whose value - 
would be destroyed if he was not permitted to sell it, and that the 
law was unconstitutional as depriving of property without compen- 
sation. All his offers of proof were rejected. He was found 
guilty and fined one hundred dollars. The sentence was affirmed 
by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a writ of error obtained 
from that of the United States. 
In an opinion by Justice Harlan the sentence was affirmed and 
the law pronounced a valid exercise of the police power. The 
grounds given are dislike to interfere with any action of the state 
upon its own citizens, ostensibly for a public purpose, in prevent- 
ing frauds and the sale of dangerous articles of food, and inability 
to say that such purpose was not subserved by the law. Almost in 
the same terms as used by Chief Justice Waite in Munn vs. Illinois, 
Justice Harlan says: 
“Tf this legislation is unwise or oppressive, the appeal is to the legisla- 
ture or to the people at the polls.” 
‘Nevertheless, if the incompatibility of the constitution and the stat- 
ute is clear or palpable, the courts must give effect to the former, and 
such would be the duty of the courts if the state legislature, under the 
