Question: "Resolved, That each state has the right to prohibit the sale of oleomargarine within its limits."

Brief for the Affirmative.

FRITZ V. BRIESEN and W. S. YOUNGMAN.Best general references: C. S. Patterson in Ann. Am. Acad. I, pp. 192-202 (Oct. 1890); Pol. Sci. Quart. II, pp. 545-557 (Dec. 1887); Cooley's Constitutional Limitations p. 741.

I. Each state has the constitutional right to prohibit the sale of any article which it considers harmful to the public: Cooley's Const. Limit. p. 741. - (a) The Constitution gives the states all powers not granted to Congress: Const.- Amend. Art. X. - (b) Police powers not granted to Congress. - (c) Amendment XIV does not affect the states' power, "for the protection of health, prevention of fraud, and the preservation of public morals": Powell vs. Penna. 127 U.S. 678; Kansas v. Ziebold 123. U.S. 623.

II. "The manufacture and sale of any oleaginous substances designed to take the place of butter may be forbidden, though it is healthful and marked 'oleomargarine butter' ": Cooley p. 741, note 1; Powell vs. Penna. - (a) The state is the sole judge as to the dangerous and fraudulent quality of any article. - (1) Provisions of Amendment X.

III. The sale of oleomargarine gives rise to fraud and imitation: Daily Papers, Waterbury v. Newton 50 N. Y. S. 534.

Brief for the Negative.

W. M. TROTTER and R. WALCOTT.Best general references: Constitutional - Pomeroy's Constitutional Law, 270-337; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Cap. 16; Patterson in Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Sci., Oct., 1890. Economic - Pol. Sci. Quarterly, II, 545-557 (1887); 19th Ann. Report Mass. Board of Health, 1887,200-290; Bulletin 13, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Part 1, p. 24.

I. Such a statute conflicts with Art 1, Sec. 8, S 3, of the Constitution, viz: "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states." - (a) Prohibition of sale of imported articles interferes with this power. - (1) Sale is an essential part of commerce: Pomeroy 285. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 410. - (b) States have not full concurrent power over such commerce. - (1) Constitution, itself, makes it exclusive with commerce: Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1; Pomeroy, 280. - (x) No analogy with concurrent power of taxation. - (2) Best theory of Constitutional construction is that matters touching several states rest with national government. - (x) Oleomargarine in general use: Board of Health, 205. - (3) Full concurrency never supported by a majority of the Supreme Court: Pomeroy, 271. - (4) Judicial decisions have established doctrine that Congress' power exclusive where subject admits uniformity. - (5) Even in other cases state jurisdiction ousted by legislation on the subject by Congress: Pomeroy, 307, note. - (c) Congress' power exclusive in this case (1) Admits of uniformity. - (2) Congress has legislated directly on this subject matter. - (x) Law of 1886 "regulating sale, importation and exportation of oleomargarine:" McPherson's Hand-book pol. 1886.

II. Such legislation is deprivation of liberty and property under 14th Amendment: Field. C. J., in Powell v. Penn.; Thayer, Vol. II, 646. - (a) By "liberty" is meant freedom to do such acts as a man judges best for his interests not in consistent with the rights of others: People v. Marks, 99 N. Y. 377, 386; In Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98. - (1) This includes inalienable right to procure healthy and nutritious food: Field v. s. - (2) Oleomargarine is nutritious and healthy food: Dr. E. G. Brackett in 19th Report Mass. Board of Health, 272; Prof. At water in Pol. Sci. Quarterly II, 553. - (x) Cheaper than butter and serves purpose equally well - (y) Resists rancidity longer. - (3) Adulteration does not apply. - (x) Butter and cheese adulterated. - (4) Deception guarded against by law requiring stamp. - (5) That one valuable product resembles another no ground for suppressing either. - (b) "A right of property in an article involves the right to sell or dispose of it, as well as use and enjoy it:" Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, 137.

III. It is not justified by Amendment 10. - (a) Police power cannot interfere with interstate commerce: Leisy v. Hardin, U. S. 100; Minnesota v. Barber 136 U. S. 313; Kninish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 677. - (b) This is a proper subject of commerce: U. S. v. Eaton, 114 U. S. 677. - (1) So implied by U. S. Law of 1886. - (x) Regulation is sanction. - (2) So viewed in Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Denmark: Mass. Board of Health, 278.