The Portland daily press., 1894-12-12
o, .EomARGARrNE AND BUTTER.


The, United States Supreme Court has
lust rem dered an important decision affect
ing the c. onstitutionality of laws which
exist in arge nun Der of States restrc-
ting the sa lie of oleomargarine. The
particular sta. tute that was before the
court was that of Massachusetts, which
does not prohibiat the manufacture or
sale of all oleomarg. arine, hut only suoh
as is colored in imitation on yellow puI-
ter produced from pure unadultefaCea
milk or cream of such mi Tx 5"h'ie ~
permits the sale of such as Is Tree ifoin
celebration OF ingredients that CAUSES II
to look like butter" if sold "Ln a separ-
ate and distinct form and III sucl Il inaii'ei
as will advise the consumer OF US ie"t
character" The majority OF the couro
held that the statute was constl5nel onai'
while minority consisting OF o.'lei
Justice Fuller, and Justices Field az ~
Brewer held the contrary. The grounN
on which unconstitutionality was
claimed was that iG was an attempted
regulation by the State OF Interstate
commerce, and therefore was obnoxious
to the. constitution, which reserved TO
Congress exclusively the right to make
such regulations. The opinion OF the
majority of the. court takes the ground
that the Massachusetts, statute is merely
regulation to prevent fraud, thai IL
does not interfere with the sale OF oleo-
margarine as oleomargarine. The Court
says:
If anyone thinks that oleomargarine
which has not been artificially colored
so as to cause it to look like butter is as
palatable and as wholesome for purposes
of food, as pure butter, he is at liberty
under the statute of Massachusetts, TO
manufacture 1t in that State or ito sell 1t
there in such manner as to inform tne
customer of its real character. He IS
only forbidden to practice, in sucn mat
rers, fraud upon the general pupllc.
The statute seeks to suppress Ialse pre-
fences and to promote fair dealing IN lne
sale of an article of food. Can it be that
the constitution of the United States
secures to anyone the privilege OF manu-
featuring and selling an article OF 1000
in such manner as to inducesJhe mass or
people to believe that they a-e buying
something which in fact is wholly dlffef-
ent from that which is offered for safer
Abiding to the original package de-
csion in which the Court decided that
liquors brought into one State from an
other could not be seized while in the
original package, the Court says that 1t
is not parallel to the case under con-
sideration. inasmuch as there was no
element of fraud or deceit involved-the
transported liquors were to be sold for
exactly what they were. From the
reasoning of the Court..it would seem to
follow that any general prohibition of
the sale of oleomargarine by State
would be unconstitutional; it is only
when its sale under circum-
stances that deceive the purchaser in re-
gard to what he is buying that can be
lawfully forbidden. The minority while
apparently not controyerting the position
of the majority that a. State may make
regulations to prevent the sale of imita-
tions made for fraudulent purposes, con-
tends that the Massachusetts, statute is
not limited to such limitations, but
really prohibits the sale of oleomargarine
because it looks like butter. To pro-
hibit the sale of legitimate article of
commerce, recognized as such by the rev.
enue laws of the country, becauseit looks
like something else and because pur-
chasers may be deceived by this resem-
blance in regard to it's quality is, the
minority contend, beyond the power of
the State, and they consider the opinion
of the majority in this case clearly in
consistent with settled principles.