CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1897. SCHOLLENBERGER v. PENNSYLVANIA. PAUL v. PENNSYLVANIA. PAUL v. PENNSYLVANIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Nos. 86, 87, 89. Argued March 28, 24, 1898. - Decided May 28, 1898. Oleomargarine has, for nearly a quarter of a century, been recognized in Europe and in the United States as an article of food and commerce, and was recognized as such by Congress in the act of August 2, 1886, c. 840; and, being thus a lawful article of commerce, it cannot be wholly excluded from importation into a State from another State where it was manufactured, although the State into which it was imported may so regulate the introduction as to insure purity, without having the power to totally exclude it. A sale of a ten pound package of oleomargarine, manufactured, packed, marked, imported and sold under the circumstances set forth in detail in the special verdict in this case, was a valid sale, although made to a person who was himself a consumer; but it is not decided that this right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the importer after its arrival within the State. The importer had not only a right to sell personally, but he had the right to employ an agent to sell for him, and a sale thus effected was valid. The right of the importer to sell does not depend upon whether the original package was suitable for retail trade or not, but is the same, whether VOL. CLXXI-1 1 Statement of the Case. to consumers or to wholesale dealers, provided he sells in original packages. Act No. 21 of the legislature of Pennsylvania, enacted May 21, 1885, enacting that "no person, firm or carporate 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" and making such act a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, is invalid to the extent that it prohibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another State, and its sale in the original package. 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 (No. 25) 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 imprisonment. The jury found a special verdict in each case. The only difference between the facts stated in the verdict in Number 86 and those contained in the other cases is that in the latter the package sold was ten pounds instead of forty pounds and was sold by the plaintiffs in error in those cases as agents of a different principal, carrying on the same kind of business in the State of Illinois, and the package was sold to a different person and upon a different date. Statement of the Case. The following facts were set out in the special verdict in Number 86: "(1.) The defendant, George Schollenberger, is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is the duly authorized agent in the city of Philadelphia of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company of Providence, Rhode Island. "(2.) The said Oakdale Manufacturing Company is engaged. in the manufacture of oleomargarine in the said city of Providence and State of Rhode Island, and as such manufacturer has complied with all the provisions of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886, entitled 'An act defining butter; also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation of oleomargarine.' "(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. "(4.) The said defendant, on the 1st day of July, 1893, paid to the collector of internal revenue of the first district of Pennsylvania the sum of four hundred and eighty 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: 'Stamp for per year. No. A 434. United States internal revenue. Special tax, per year. No. A 434. "Received from George Schollenberger, agent for the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, the sum of four hundred and eighty dollars for special tax on the business of wholesale dealer in oleomargarine, to be carried on at 219 Callowhill street, Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, for the period represented by the coupon or coupons hereto attached. "Dated at Philadelphia, Pa., July first, 1893. 666 "[SEAL.] "$480. WILLIAM H. DOYLE, Collector, First District of Penna.' |