THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States AT OCTOBER TERM, 1897. Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and figures as are inclosed in brackets.] (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 1-30.) Oleomargarine a subject of commerce-inspection-power of state-cannot be excluded from state-ten-pound packages 4. As Congress taxes oleomargarine and recog. nizes it as a proper subject of commerce, it cannot be totally excluded from a state simply because the state decides that, for the purpose of preventing the importation of an impure or adulterated article, it will not permit the introduction within its borders of the pure and unadulterated article. 5. A sale of a 10-pound package of oleomargarine manufactured, imported, and sold by the Importer under the circumstances found in the special verdict in this case, was a valid sale, although to a person who was a consumer. 6. An importer may sell original packages of oleomargarine by an agent as well as person ally. 7. An Importer has the right to sell oleomargarine in original packages to consumers as well as to wholesale dealers, and the exercise of this right will not be prevented by the fact that the packages are suitable for retail trade. sale by agent-sale to consumers-Penn- 8. The Pennsylvania statute of 1885, to the exsylvania statute invalid. 1. Oleomargarine, having been recognized by the act of Congress of 1886 as a proper subject of taxation and of traffic and exportation and importation, and being a well-known article of food, is a proper subject of commerce among the states and with foreign nations. 2. The fact that inspection or analysis of the article imported is somewhat difficult and burdensome will not justify a state in totally excluding a pure and healthy food product. 8. A state cannot absolutely prohibit the introduction within its borders of an article of commerce which is not adulterated, and which in its pure state is healthful, simply facture may be adulterated by dishonest manufacturers, for the purpose of fraud or II tent that it prohibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another state, and its sale in the original package as described in the special verdict in this case, is invalid. [Nos. 86-88.] Argued March 23, 24, 1898. Decided May 23, 1898. IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania to review a judgment of that court reversing the judgment of the trial court for the defendant in each of these cases and in favor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania convicting in pursuance of the special verdict said defendants severally of a violation of a statute of said state prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine, and remanding the visions sold to a consumer, -see note to Craft v. Parker (Mico.) 21 L. R. A. 139. As to power of Congress to regulate commorce, -see note to State, Corwin, v. Indiana & O. Oil, Gas & Min. Co. (Ind.) 6 L. R. A. 579. As to state tax or license as affecting commerce, - see note to Rothermel v. Meyerle (Pa.) such article in the course of its manu legal gains. NOTE.-As to implied warranty on sale of food, see note to McQuald v. Ross (Wis.) 22 L. R. A. 195. As to prohibition of sale of oleomargarine, see note to Com. v. Miller (Pa.) 6 L. R. A. 633. As to liability of vendor in cases of tort for sale of unwholesome food or drug; personal damages from negligent sale of drug; pro-9 L. R. A. 366. 171 U. S. U. S., Book 43. 49 cases for sentence. The cases were similar | July, 1893, paid to the collector of internal and the three cases were argued together. revenue of the first district of Pennsylvania Judgments of the Supreme Court reversed, and the cases remanded for further proceedings. See same case below, Com. v. Paul, 170 Pa. 284 [30 L. R. A. 396]. Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: [2] *The questions in these three cases are the same, and they arise out of the selling of certain packages of oleomargarine. The plaintiffs in error were indicted for and convicted of a violation of a statute of Pennsylvania prohibiting such sale. The act was passed on the 21st of May, 1885, and is to be found in the volume of the laws of Pennsylvania for that year, page 22. It provides as follows: "That no person, firm, or corporate body shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance or any compound of the same, other than that produced from unadulterated milk, or of cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same, or of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor shall sell or offer for sale, or have in his, her, or their possession with intent to sell the same as an article of food." A violation of the act is made a misdemeanor and punishable by fine and imprison ment. [3] *The following facts were set out in the special verdict in number 86: the sum of four hundred and eignty dollars as and for a special tax upon the business, as agent for the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, in oleomargarine, and obtained from said collector a writing in the words following: "The following clauses appear on the [4] margin of the above: ""This stamp is simply a receipt for a tax due the government, and does not exempt the holder from any penalty or punishment provided for by the law of any state for carrying on the said business within such state, and does not authorize the commencement nor the continuance of such business contrary to the laws of such state or in places prohibited by a municipal law. See § 3243, Revised Statutes, U. S. "'Severe penalties are imposed for neglect or refusal to place and keep this stamp conspicuously in your establishment or place of business. Act of August 2, 1886.' "Attached to this were coupons for each month of the year in form as follows: ""Coupon for special tax on wholesale dealer in oleomargarine for October, 1893.' " (1) The defendant, George Schollenberger, is a resident and citizen of the commonwealth ing Company shipped to the said defendant, of 'ennsylvania, and is the duly authorized agent in the city of Philadelphia of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company of Providence, Knode Island. (5) On or before the said second day of October, 1893, the said Oakdale Manufacturtheir agent aforesaid, at their place of business in Philadelphia, a package of oleomargarine separate and apart from all other packages, being a tub thereof containing forty (2) The said Oakdale Manufacturing Com- pounas, packed, sealed, marked, stamped, and pany is engaged in the manufacture of oleo- branded in accordance with the requirement margarine in the said city of Providence and of the said act of Congress of August second, state of Rhode Island, and as such manufact- 1886. The said package was an original urer has complied with all the provisions of package, as required by said act, and was of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886, entitled such form, size, and weight as is used by pro'An Act Defining Butter; also Imposing a ducers or shippers for the purpose of securing Tax upon and Regulating the Manufacture, both convenience in handling and security in Sale, Importation, and Exportation of Oleo- transportation of merchandise between margarine.' "(3) The said defendant, as agent aforesaid, is engaged in business at 219 Callowhill street, in the city of Philadelphia, as wholesale dealer in oleomargarine, and was so engaged on the 2d day of October, 1893, and is not engaged in any other business, either for himself or others. The said defendant, on the 1st day of dealers in the ordinary course of actual commerce, and the said form, size, and weight were adopted in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the laws of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, said package being one of a number of similar packages forming one consignment shipped by the said company to the said defendant. Said packages forming said consignment were unloaded from the |