The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-05-26
The oIeomargarine Decision.

Until more complete information is
given than has been received it will
be impossible to estimate the effect of
the decision of the federal supreme
court in the oleomargarine cases from
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire
upon the legislation of this state on
the same subject. 1t Is inferable that
the case went off on the point that the
laws of those states prohibited the i'm
portation and sale within the states of
imitation butter made in other states.
This the supreme court holds is in con-
travention of the constitution giving to
congress the sole power to regulate
commerce between the states. This in
ference is strengthened by the state
ment that the provision of the New
Hampshire law which permitted the
importation and sale of butterine, If it
were given a pink color, did not Oper-
ate to save the law from infringing
the federal constitution. it being, the
court said, mere evasion.
The oleo laws of this state are jum-
bic of enactments beginning in 1881 and
ending in 1891. The penal code had
provided a penalty for the sale, as an
article of food of any imitation without
brand or mark informing the pur-
chaser of its true nature, but the first
attempt to restrict the sale was made
in 1881, when a law was enacted re-
curing substitutes for butter to be
branded "oleomargarine." 1t was
thought that no one would buy the ar
ticle if he knew what it was. The
Sin Of r.
led to more stringent provisions in 1887,
and one law contained a more precise
definition of what imitation or patent
butter was, while another one required
hotel and restaurant keepers and
others, who provided the substitute for
their guests, to announce that fact on
their bills Of fare and by placards.
These did not produce the desired eff
feet, and in 1891 law was passed re-
curing all such limitations to be COL
ored a bright pink, law that our court
held to be a valid exercise of legislative
power.
There is nowhere any express inhibi-
ton of the importation into the state
of oleomargarine unless it be found in
section 6996, which provides that
mo person shall sell, keep
for sale, or offer for sale any
article, substance or compound
made. manufactured or produced
in violation Of the provisions of this
section, whether such article, substance
or compound shall be made or produced
in this state or any other state or coun-
try" Other sections provide that the
mere having it in possession shall be
held prima facie evidence of intent
to sell and subject the holder to the
penalties Of the law. So far as this
would be construed as an interference
with interstate commerce it is within
the decision Of the supreme court, and
there can be little question that the
presumption Of guilt raised by the law
from the mere fact of possession is I'M
constitutional. If importation is law
full the retention Of the article by the
Importer is lawful, and it should fol-
low that the subsequent sale of the
article is also lawful, for interstate
commerce is the bringing of the prod
uct of one state into another for sale
or exchange.
These laws are all class legislation
under the pretenSe OF preserving the
public health, a false premise being as
sumed to cover an act otherwise be-
yond the power of the state. The state
went to the limit Of it's legitimate pow
er when it required the substitute to
be so plainly marked as to not mis-
lead any person to buy it under the
impression that it was butter 1t should
have stopped there, for, however laud-
able and plausible may be the excuse
for going farther, it starts in operation
chain Of presidents that run from
bad to worse constantly. The pretense
of unhealthfulness was long ago ex-
ploded. Oleomargarine is merely
healthful substitute for butter which
persons wishing to use should be al
lowed to buy.