534 HASTINGS-—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
imitation of butter, with a proviso that the law should not inter- 
fere with sale of an uncolored article in a separate and distinct 
form, such as would advise the purchaser of its character. Inspec- 
tors were authorized and required to make complaints and enter all 
places where butter and its imitations were sold and take suspected 
specimens for analysis. 
Benjamin A. Plumley, convicted under this act, sought a writ of 
habeas corpus in the state Supreme Court, claiming that he only 
offered for sale ten pounds of pure animal fats designed to take the 
place of butter; that it was made at Chicago by a firm of which 
he was agent, and that he offered it in a package in which it was 
sent ; that the article and all made by the firm was wholesome, 
nutritious and palatable and a regular article of commerce; that 
the Massachusetts law violated both the fourteenth amendment and 
the commercial clause of the federal constitution and was repug- 
nant to congressional legislation on the same subject. 
The state Supreme Court found that oleomargarine is naturally 
of a light, yellowish color, and that the material in question had 
been colored to imitate butter; that the applicant had offered to 
prove his assertions as to the article, where it was made and his 
agency to sell it in original packages in Massachusetts, and was 
not permitted ; that he had complied with the act of Congress as 
- to its sale and it was plainly stamped as oleomargarine. His sen- 
tence was held valid and he remanded to custody. 
By writ of error the case came to Washington. Justice Harlan 
for the court finds that the act of Congress as to oleomargarine 
was not intended to regulate interstate commerce, but to lay a tax, 
and, like other federal tax laws, has only that effect, and takes no 
authority away from the state. He finds such authority in the state 
over foods and their purity. He easily distinguishes the various 
cases, in which police objects were mere pretexts, from this one. 
But when he comes to Leisy vs. Hardin, he can only say that in 
that case the article offered was genuine beer and no imitation, and 
therefore the declaration in that case that no state can make an 
article prohibited which is generally accepted as an article of com- 
merce does not apply to this one. 
Of course, as we have seen, the case concedes that the article 
offered was wholesome and an article of commerce shipped from 
Chicago, where it was regularly produced in quantities, but Massa- 
chusetts had said that its color condemned it. Chief Justice 
