importation within the State of the same article manufactured outside of its limits might be regarded as illegal because in violation of the rights of citizens of other States arising under the commerce clause of that instrument.

Nor is the question determined adversely to this view in the case of Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 462. The statute in that case prevented the sale of this substance in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream of the same, and the statute contained a proviso that nothing therein should be "construed to prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate or distinct form and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from coloration or ingredients that cause it to look like butter." This court held that a conviction under that statute for having sold an article known as oleomargarine, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream, but manufactured in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream, was valid. Attention was called in the opinion to the fact that the statute did not prohibit the manufacture or sale of all oleomargarine, but only such as was colored in imitation of yellow butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream of such milk. If free from coloration or ingredient that caused it to look like butter, the right to sell it in a separate and distinct form and in such manner as would advise the consumer of the real character was neither restricted nor prohibited. The court held that under the statute the party was only forbidden to practise in such matters a fraud upon the general public; that the statute seeks to suppress false pretences and to promote fair dealing in the sale of an article of food, and that it compels the sale of oleomargarine for what it really is by preventing its sale for what it is not; that the term "commerce among the States" did not mean a recognition of a right to practise a fraud upon the public in the sale of an article even if it had become the subject of trade in different parts of the country. It was said that the Constitution of the United States did not take from the States the power of preventing deception and fraud in the sale within their respective limits of articles, in whatever State manufactured, and that that instrument did not secure to any one the privilege of committing a wrong against society.

[Commonwealth v. Schollenberg, 156 Penn. St. 201, and the opinion of the Pennsylvania court in the present case are considered, and various cases, most of them already given or discussed, are cited and commented upon.]

We are not aware of any such distinction as is attempted to be drawn by the court below in these cases between a sale at wholesale to individuals engaged in the wholesale trade or one at retail to the consumer. How small may be an original package it is not necessary to here determine. We do say that a sale of a ten pound pack

age of oleomargarine, manufactured, packed, marked, imported and sold under the circumstances set forth in detail in the special verdict, was a valid sale, although to a person who was himself a consumer. We do not say or intimate that this right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the importer after its arrival within the State. Waring v. The Mayor, 8 Wall. 110, 122. The importer had the right to sell not only personally, but he had the right to employ an agent to sell for him. Otherwise his right to sell would be substantially valueless, for it cannot be supposed that he would be personally engaged in the sale of every original package sent to the different States in the Union. Having the right to sell through his agent, a sale thus effected is valid.

The right of the importer to sell cannot depend upon whether the original package is suitable for retail trade or not. His right to sell is the same, whether to consumers or to wholesale dealers in the article, provided he sells them in original packages. This does not interfere with the acknowledged right of the State to use such means as may be necessary to prevent the introduction of an adulterated article, and for that purpose to inspect and test the article introduced, provided the State law does really inspect and does not substantially prohibit the introduction of the pure article and thereby interfere with interstate commerce. It cannot for the purpose of preventing the introduction of an impure or adulterated article absolutely prohibit the introduction of that which is pure and wholesome. The act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, under consideration, to the extent that it prohibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another State and its sale in the original package, as described in the special verdict, is invalid.

The judgments are therefore reversed and the cases remanded to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.1

1 MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered a dissenting opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurred.

IN COLLINS v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 171 U. S. 30 (1898), which was argued with the case above, the question was whether a State statute requiring all oleomargarine sold in the State to be colored pink was valid as to sales in original packages. The court said (through the same justice who delivered the prevailing opinion in the case above, and with the same dissent):

"We think this case comes within the principle of the cases just decided regarding the statute of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prohibiting the introduction of oleomargarine into that Commonwealth. This statute is in its practical effect prohibitory. It is clear that it is not an inspection law in any sense. It provides for no inspection, and it is apparent that none was intended. The act is a mere evasion of the direct prohibition contained in the Pennsylvania statute, and yet if enforced the result, within the State, would be quite as positive in the total suppression of the article as is the case with the Pennsylvania act.

"In a case like this it is entirely plain that if the State has not the power to absolutely prohibit the sale of an article of commerce like oleomargarine in its pure state, it has no power to provide that such article shall be colored, or rather discolored, by

c. Federal Tax on Exports.

PACE v. BURGESS.

92 United States, 372. 1875.

[THIS action was brought in the United States Circuit Court for Virginia to recover from defendant as United States collector of internal revenue the amount paid to him by plaintiff for stamps required by statute of the United States to be affixed, and which were affixed to packages of manufactured tobacco intended for exportation. Judgment was for defendant and plaintiff took a writ of error.]

Mr. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff contends that the charge for the stamps required to be placed on packages of manufactured tobacco intended for exportation was and is a duty on exports, within the meaning of that clause in the Constitution of the United States which declares that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." But it is manifest that such was not its character or object. The stamp was intended for no other purpose than to separate and identify the tobacco which the manufacturer desired to export, and thereby, instead of taxing it, to relieve it from the taxation to which other tobacco was subjected. It was a means devised to prevent fraud, and secure the faithful carrying out of the declared intent with regard to the tobacco so marked. The payment of twenty-five cents or of ten cents for the stamp used was no more a tax on the export than was the fee for clearing the vessel in which it was transported, or for making out and certifying the manifest of the cargo. It bore no proportion whatever to the quantity or value of the package on which it was affixed. These were unlimited, except by the discretion of the exporter or the convenience of handling. The large amount

adding a foreign substance to it, in the manner described in the statute. Pink is not the color of oleomargarine in its natural state. The act necessitates and provides for adulteration. It enforces upon the importer the necessity of adding a foreign substance to his article, which is thereby rendered unsalable, in order that he may be permitted lawfully to sell it. If enforced, the result could be foretold. To color the substance as provided for in the statute naturally excites a prejudice and strengthens a repugnance up to the point of a positive and absolute refusal to purchase the article at any price. The direct and necessary result of a statute must be taken into consideration when deciding as to its validity, even if that result is not in so many words either enacted or distinctly provided for. In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455, at 462. Although under the wording of this statute the importer is permitted to sell oleomargarine freely and to any extent, provided he colors it pink, yet the permission to sell, when accompanied by the imposition of a condition which, if complied with, will effectually prevent any sale, amounts in law to a prohibition."

paid for such stamps by the plaintiff only shows that he was carrying on an immense business.

The evidence given to show that the original cost of the stamps was never less than the amount paid for them by the manufacturers is entitled to very slight consideration. The cost of the paper, ink, and printing, formed but a small part of the expense of those arrangements which were necessary in order to give to the exporter the benefit of exemption from taxation, and at the same time to secure the necessary precautions against the perpetration of fraud. We know how next to impossible it is to prevent fraudulent practices wherever the internal revenue is concerned; and the pretext of intending to export such an article as manufactured tobacco would open the widest door to such practices, if the greatest strictness and precaution were not observed. The proper fees accruing in the due administration of the laws and regulations necessary to be observed to protect the government from imposition and fraud likely to be committed under pretence of exportation are in no sense a duty on exportation. They are simply the compensation given for services properly rendered. The rule by which they are estimated may be an arbitrary one; but an arbitrary rule may be more convenient and less onerous than any other which can be adopted. The point to guard against is, the imposition of a duty under the pretext of fixing a fee. In the case under consideration, having due regard to that latitude of discretion which the legislature is entitled to exercise in the selection of the means for attaining a constitutional object, we cannot say that the charge imposed is excessive, or that it amounts to an infringement of the constitutional provision referred to. We cannot say that it is a tax or duty instead of what it purports to be, a fee or charge, for the employment of that instrumentality which the circumstances of the case render necessary for the protection of the government.

One cause of difficulty in the case arises from the use of stamps as one of the means of segregating and identifying the property intended to be exported. It is the form in which many taxes and duties are imposed and liquidated; stamps being seldom used, except for the purpose of levying a duty or tax. But we must regard things rather than names. A stamp may be used, and, in the case before us, we think it is used, for quite a different purpose from that of imposing a tax or duty; indeed, it is used for the very contrary purpose, that of securing exemption from a tax or duty. The stamps required by recent laws to be affixed to all agreements, documents, and papers, and to different articles of manufacture, were really and in truth taxes and duties, or evidences of the payment of taxes and duties, and were intended as such. The stamp required to be placed on gold-dust exported from California by a law of that State was clearly an export tax, as this court decided in the case of Almy v. The State of California, 24 How. 169. In all such cases, no one could entertain

a reasonable doubt on the subject. The present case is different, and must be judged by its own circumstances. The sense and reason of the thing will generally determine the character of every case that can arise.

The court being of opinion that the charge for the stamps in this case was not a tax or duty within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution referred to, it is unnecessary to examine the other questions that were discussed in the argument of the cause.

Judgment affirmed.

d. State Tax on Imports or Exports.

BROWN v. MARYLAND.

12 Wheat. 419; 7 Curtis, 262. 1827.
[See page 303, supra.]

ALMY v. CALIFORNIA.

24 Howard, 169. 1860.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. The only question in this case is upon the constitutionality of a law of California, imposing a stamp tax upon bills of lading.

By an act passed by the Legislature of that State to provide a revenue for the support of the Government from a stamp tax on certain instruments of writing, among other instruments mentioned in the law, a stamp tax was imposed on bills of lading for the transportation from any point or place in that State, to any point or place without the State, of gold or silver coin, in whole or in part, golddust, or gold or silver in bars or other form; and the law requires that there shall be attached to the bill of lading, or stamped thereon, a stamp or stamps, expressing in value the amount of such tax or duty.

By a previous law upon the same subject it was made a misdemeanor, punishable by fine, to use any paper without a stamp, where the law required stamped paper to be used.

After the passage of these acts, Almy, the plaintiff in error, being the master of the ship "Ratler," then lying in the port of San Francisco, and bound to New York, received a quantity of gold-dust for transportation to New York, for which he signed a bill of lading upon unstamped paper, and without having any stamp attached to it. For this disobedience to the law of California he was indicted in the Court of Sessions for a misdemeanor, and at the trial the jury found