Evening star., 1897-01-25
OIEOMARGARlNE CASES
They We're Argued Before the o. s. su-
preme Court Today.
What the Briefs of the Attorneys on
Both sides Set FOrth-Interested
Spectators Present,

The olooniargarine cases were argued be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United
States this morning. Nessrs. jeremiah
Wilson and Henry f. Davis appeared for
the appellants and Holmes Conrad. assist
ant attorney general. for the government,
Mr.. Joseph Wilkins of the firm of wilkins
* Co. of this city, Mr. NJ. V. Stone of Braun
& Fits. oleomargarine manufacturers OF
Chicago were present as interested spec
tators.
Briefs Were filed by jeremiah NJ Wilson
and Henry z. Davis for the petitioners
and by the Attorney General for the
United States
The Petitioners Brief.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that
the act of Congress approved August ,
1886. commonly known as the oleomar-
garine law, is unconstitutional for the
reason that Congress cannot delegate to
the commissioner of internal revenue act
ing either alone or with any other person.
authority and power to determine what
acts shall be criminal. and that the act
does not define what act done or omitted to
be done shall constitute criminal offense.
No offense against the United States
can, therefore be lawfully created by a
statute which attempts TO make criminal
an act which may be in violation of a reg
ulation thereafter to be formulated by
some department or officer of government
II the doing or not doing the act depends
upon Its prescription or prohibition by some
person named In the statute after the
statute shall have passed from the domain
of Congress. such act cannot be deemed an
offense by the courts of the United States
because, first, Congress cannot delegate its
power to declare offenses any more than it
can delegate any other of its legislative
functions, and, secondly. Congress cannot
make criminal an act unknown and
conceived at the time of its action.
The OleOTnargariQp act the counsel
for the petitioners, does not profess to
regulate commerce between the states, but
ON the contrary, attempts to prescribe the
marking OF packages containing Oleomar-
garine which may never leave the confines
of a given state. Under what provision of
the Constitution may Congress be claimed
to have such power? If it be said that ii
is a part of the police power. the answer
is that Congress has no such power except
In those portions of territory over which
Congress has exclusive Jurisdiction, and
the act is not limited and does not purport
to be limited to such The fact is that Con-
gress has assumed to exercise the power
throughout the United States of protecting
all citizens from fraudulent imposition-a
power which Congress clearly lacks under
the Constitution BY what right can Con-
gre declare that a given package shall
he Stamped This contains butter or This
contains oleomargarine." or that given
package contains any particular substance?
Such legislation is not within any of the
delegated powers of Congress. and the right
to prescribe such designation is power
belonging TO the states and not delegated
to the general government. This would
seem too clear for argument"
Attorney Generals Contention.
In the brief of the Attorney General it
is argued that section 3446 of the Revised
Statutes has been in force since July. 1865,
nearly thirty years. and applies to every
subject of internal revenue.
IT confers." 1t Is declared in the brief
tive officers full lower 10 change the form
style and device of any stamp. mark oil
label. providing only that the general char
acter of the stamps above mentioned shall
not be abandoned.
1t Is difficult to perceive wherein the
power to prescribe the marks. stamps. and
brands by which oleomarsarine packages
may be identified is in excess of or differs
ferred by section BIG Revised Statutes
Both have the same object. to wit, to Sc
cure revenue by internal iaxtation and 10
prevent fraud in the collection of such
revenue.
The penalties prescribed are alike in
each. 1t was argued in brief Of counsel for
petitioners in the lower court. first, that
there is essential and radical difference
between the stamps on one hand and the
marks on the other: and, secondly. that the
oleomargarine act itself diScriminates the
two by providing that the one shall be evi
deroe of the payment to government OF
the taxes fixed by the act and the other
a Eotice 10 the purchaser of oleomarga
rine that he is getting that and not a diff
ferent article But the obvious reply Il
both objections will be found In section
3ii6, Revised Statutes, and the section.
Immediately following
Congress had power to prohibit alto
sether the sale of oleo-nargarine. 1t ha,
power to impose terms and conditions upoI
which alone it might be sold. 1t perrnitte,
ii to be sold in wooden or paper packages
but ii prescribed as an essential condi
ticn that all such packages should u
marked. stamped and branded. These ar
the express terms of the act Petitioner
knew that this was the law. They ais
knew that the oleomargarine sold by then
was not stamped. marked or branded The,
knew that ;he stamp required was a STAN
that had TO be purchased from the govern
ments that 1t represented the tax impose
by the government for revenue purpose
upon all dealers in oleomargarint. for II.
privilege Of conducting such business; the
Knew that they had not purchased th4s
stamps and had not paid that tax No vi
major operated upon them, constrainin
them 10 sell oleomargarine: ii was a vol
untary act on their part; they chose to d
it, despite the law.
If the commissioner of internal revenII
had failed altogether 10 perform his dl:t
In prescribing the brand, stamp and mar
required by the statute still these petition
ers would have been wholly without ey
cuse; their redress might then have bee
sought and found in plain paths.
Congress must. of necessity, In man
cases. leave TO the executive officers of tn
upon the completion OF which alone doe
legislation become effectual.''
he