In Powell v. Pennsylvania29 the court held that a state law which, as a police regulation, laid down certain rules for the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, was not, as alleged, a violation of the due process of law provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Plumley v. Massachusetts30 the court again upheld a drastic state law regulating the manufacture and sale of articles simulating butter, as being in violation neither of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor of the Commerce Clause, even when applied to such articles brought from other States. The validity of the law was sustained as a legitimate police provision against fraud, the court as to this saying: "It will be observed that the statute of Massachusetts . . . does not prohibit the manufacture or sale of all oleomargarine, but only such as is colored in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream of such milk. . . . The statute seeks to suppress false pretences and to promote fair dealing in the sale of an article of food. . . . Can it be that the Constitution of the United States secures to any one the privilege of manufacturing and selling an article of food in such manner as to induce the mass of people to believe that they are buying something which, in fact, is wholly different from that which is offered for sale ? Does the freedom of commerce among the States demand recognition of the right to practise a deception upon the public in the sale of any articles, even those that may have become the subject of trade in different parts of the country ? " 31

29 127 U. S. 678; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992; 32 L. ed. 253. 30 155 U. S. 461; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154; 39 L. ed. 223.

31 The case is distinguished from the liquor cases on the ground that in those cases no element of fraud was involved. But as Prentice and Egan properly remark, the protection of health and morals is as much within the scope of the police powers as is protection against fraud, and "the consequences of buying, even through error, a palatable and nutritious substitute for butter, instead of the genuine article, are not worse than the consequences of disease and crime which result from the general use of intoxicating liquors." The Commerce Clause, p. 51.

In Collins v. New Hampshire32 it was held that a State cannot render an article of interstate commerce unsalable, as for example compelling artificial butter to be colored pink, any more than it can prevent its importation.

In Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania,33 however, the court when asked to enforce a state oleomargarine law with reference to the importation and sale in the original package of oleomargarine manufactured in another State, held the law void so far as its application to interstate and foreign commerce was concerned. Oleomargarine, the court held, had been recognized by the Federal Government as a proper subject of interstate commerce, and it was, therefore, beyond the competence of the States whether in the exercise of their police or other powers, to place restrictions upon its importation or exportation. The court, after a review of earlier cases, say: "The general rule to be deduced from the decisions of this court is that a lawful article of commerce cannot be wholly excluded from importation into a State from another State where it was manufactured or grown. A State has power to regulate the introduction of any article, including a food product, so as to insure purity of the article imported, but such police power does not include the total exclusion of an article of food."