Democratic Sentinel, Volume 19, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 April 1895 — STATE CAN CONTROL. [ARTICLE]

STATE CAN CONTROL.

Massachusetts’ Oleomargarine Act Upheld by the Supreme Court. Justice Harlan delivered what is considered a very able opinion imthe United States Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in what is known as the oleomargarine case. One Benjamin A. Plumley, the agent of Swift & Co., the Chicago packers, was convicted of the violation of the Massachusetts statute which forbids the manufacture or sale of compounds colored to look like butter. He took an appeal to and sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the State on the ground that he was restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution and the laws of the United States. He claimed that the statute of Massachusetts was repugnant to the clause of the constitution providing that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States; to the clause declaring that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; to the clause providing that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; to the clause declaring that private property shall not be taken for public purposes; and to the act of Congress of Aug. 2, 1886, regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. The writ was denied, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, which holds that the decision of the lower court was good law. In his opinion Justice Harlan says there is no ground to suppose that Congress by enacting the oleomargarine law intended to interfere with the exercise by the States of their authority over the sale of that article, for the law expressly states that the payment of internal revenue taxes imposed shall not exempt any person from the laws of any State on this subject. In other words, by paying an internal revenue tax to the Government a man cannot violate any State law regulating its sale or manufacture, nor was that statute intended as a regulation of commerce between the States. The freedom of commerce does not include the right to practice deception upon the public in the sale of any article. If any one thinks oleomargarine which has not been artificially colored as to cause it to look like butter is as and as wholesome for purposes of food as pure butter he is at liberty under the statutes of Massachusetts to manufacture or sell it in- that State, but is required to inform his customers of its real character. The statute is only intended to preventi fraud upon the public and to promote fair dealing in the sale of articles of food. Justice Harlan says if there be any subject over which it seems that the States ought to have plenary control and in which they ought not to be interfered with by the general Government it is their protection of the people against fraud and deception in the sale of food products.