Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-06-29
OLEO DECISION
Important Rulings of the Su-
preme Court.
Which Have n Bearing on the Law Of
This State--ProhibiiiOn is Invalid.
The commemorative Power.


supreme court has handed down
important decisions affecting the
oleomargerine laws of Pennsylvania
and New Hampshire, and which in
dicate the indisposition of the court
toward such legislation in other
states. The decisions are a re-
versal of others.
Two points were made in sup
port of the Pennsylvania law: First,
that oleomargarine was not a rec
ognized article of commerce and
therefore state regulation or re-
striction of its trade was not, in the
opinion of this court, contraven-
ton of the congressional right to
regulate interstate and foreign com
merce; second, that original
packages OF the condemned ar
ticle admissible from one state to
another must be such as are suit
able for the wholesale trade only,
not for retail.
After reviewing the facts and
the law, the court speaking by JUS
tice Peckham said, as the first
point: eve think it apparent that
oleomargarne has become a proper
subject of commerce among the
states and with foreign nations.
The general rule to be deducted
from the decisions of this court is
that a lawful article of commerce
cannot be wholly excluded from i'm
portation into state from another
state where it was manufactured or
grown. A state has power to reg
ulate the introduction of any arti-
Gle including a food product SO as
to insure purity of the article i'm
ported, but such police power does
not include the total exclusion even
of an inferior article of food"
Upon the second point the court
said 1--WE are not aware OF any
such distinction as is attempted to
be drawn by the court below In
these cases between sale at whole
sale to individuals engaged in the
wholesale trade, or one at retail to
a consumer. How small may be an
original package it is not necessary
here to determine. We do not say
that a sale of a 10 pound package OF
oleomargarine was valid sale, al,
though TO person who was himself
a consumer. We do not say or In
innate that this right of sale ex-
tended beyond the first sale by the
importer after its arrival within the
state. The importer had the right
to sell not only personally, but ne
had the right to employ an agent
to sell for him."
From this opinion and judgment
Justices Harlan and Gray dissented.
They quoted the decision in the
cases of Powell and Plumley.
The New Hampshire statute pro-
hibited the sale of eleomargarlne
unless 1t were colored pink. JUS
tice Peckham said. "The statute
is in it's practical effect prohibition.
The act is a mere evasion of the di
rect prohibition contained in the
Pennsylvania statute ndyet, if en-
forced, the result, within the state
would be quite as positive in the to,
tai suppression of the article. If
the legislature have the power to
direct that the article shall be col
ored pink, which can on'y be &C
companied by the use of some tor
eign substance that will have that
effect, we do not know upon what
principle it should be confirmed to
discoloration or why provision for
an offensive odor would not be just
as valid as one prescribing the par
ticular color. The statute in its
necessary effect is prohibitory, and
therefore, upon the principle recog-
nized in the Pennsylvania cases, 1t
is invalid"
Bad management keeps more peo-