Statutes forbidding the sale of railroad tickets by any except duly authorized agents of the railroad are generally held valid,1 and so are statutes or ordinances forbidding the sale of transfers issued by a street railway company.2 However, the addition of a provision that such law should apply only if notice was given on the face of the ticket, which notice the railway company had the right to omit, was held to invalidate such statute, though valid otherwise.3 Statutes forbidding the defacing of any mark on bottles, or selling bottles unless they have been purchased by the vendor, are held valid.4 Statutes forbidding department stores,5 or forbidding a vendor of goods to give an order on a third person with the articles sold by him,6 such as what are familiarly known as "trading stamps "7 or forbidding a vendor of goods to give premiums to purchasers at his store and making such act a crime,8 have been held invalid; except where the stamp is in the nature of a lottery entitling the purchaser to something indeterminate at the time, to be selected afterwards by lot.9 Statutes requiring the ingredients of baking powder to be shown by the label,10 or forbidding the manufacture or sale of baking powder containing alum,11 are valid. Statutes which prohibit the sale of articles of food, such as vinegar,12 or oleomargarine,13 which contain artificial coloring matter; or which require oleomargarine to be colored pink,14 have been held valid. A State may totally forbid the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within its own limits,15 but cannot prevent its importation from other states.16 While a state may prevent oleomargarine colored yellow in imitation of butter from being imported,17 it cannot prevent its importation except when colored pink,18 since this involves the power to exclude it entirely in practice. Statutes forbidding any sales of shares of corporate stock "on margin " are valid.19 Statutes requiring notes given for patent rights so to state on their face are valid.20 Statutes providing that a sale of a stock of goods in bulk shall be presumed fraudulent unless accompanied with certain precautions, such as furnishing a list of creditors of the business, and requiring the vendee to see to the application of the purchase money to their debts are generally held valid.21

1 Burdick v. People, 149 111. 600;

41 Am. St. .Rep. 329; 24 L. R. A. 152; 36 N. E. 948; Fry v. State, 63 Ind. 552; 30 Am. Rep. 238; State v. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345; 24 L. R. A. 498; 59 N. W. 317; State v. Bern-heim, 19 Mont. 512; 49 Pac. 441; Commonwealth v. Keary, 198 Pa. St. 500; 48 Atl. 472; Jannin v. State,

42 Tex. Cr. Rep. 631; 96 Am. St. Rep. 821; 53 L. R. A. 349; 51 S. W. 1126; 62 S. W. 419. Contra, People v. Warden, 157 X. Y. 116; 68 Am. St. Rep. 763; 43 L. R. A. 264; 51 N. E. 1006.

2 Ex parte Loienzen. 128 Cal. 431; 79 Am. St. Rep. 47; 50 L. R. A. 55;

61 Pac. 68.

3 Jannin v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. Rep. 631; 96 Am. St. Rep. 821; 53 L. R. A. 349; 51 S. W. 1126;

62 S. W. 419. Such a statute has been held invalid as special legislation. Horwich v. Labratory

Co., 205 111. 497; 68 N. E. 938.

4 People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 645; 36 Am. St. Rep. 668; 34 N. E. 759, 1098.

5 Chicago v. Netcher, 183 111. 104; 75 Am. St. Rep. 93; 48 L. R. A. 261; 55 N. E. 707. So a statute imposing a license fee on department stores only is invalid. State v. Ash-brook, 154 Mo. 375; 77 Am. St. Rep. 765; 55 S. W. 627.

6 State v. Dalton, 22 R. I. 77; 84 Am. St. Rep. 818; 48 L. R. A. 775; 46 Atl. 234.

7 State v. Hawkins. 95 Md. 133; 93 Am. St. Rep. 328; 51 Atl. 850; State v. Dalton, 22 R. I. 77; 84 Am. St. Rep. 818; 48 L. R. A. 775; 46 Atl. 234; State v. Dodge, - Vt. -; 56 Atl. 983; Young v. Commonwealth. 101 Va. 853; 45 S. E. 327.

8 People v. Gillson. 109 N. Y. 389; 4 Am. St. Rep. 465; 17 N. E. 343.

9 State v. Hawkins, 95 Md. 133; 93 Am. St. Rep. 328; 51 Atl. 850.

10 State v. Sherod, 80 Minn. 446; 81 Am. St. .Rep. 268; 50 L. R. A. 660; 83 N. W. 417.

11 State v. Layton, 160 Mo. 474; 62 L. R. A. 163; 61 S. W. 171; affirmed Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356.

12 People v. Girard, 145 N. Y. 105; 45 Am. St. Rep. 595; 39 N. E. 823.

13 Plumely v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 462; Cook v. State, 110 Ala. 40; 20 So. 360; Butler v. Chambers, 36 Minn. 69; 1 Am. St. Rep. 638; 30 N. W. 308; State v. Bockstruek, 136 Mo. 335; 38 S. W. 317; State v. Dairy Co., 62 O. S. 350; 57 N. E 62.

14 State v. Myers. 42 W. Va. 822; 57 Am. St. Rep. 887; 35 L. R. A. 844; 26 S. E. 539.

15 Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678.

16 Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1. (Involving the same statute as that in Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678.)

17 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 462.

18 Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30.

19 Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606; Parker v. Otis, 130 Cal. 322; 92 Am. St. Rep. 56; 62 Pac. 571, 927.

20 State v. Cook, 107 Tenn. 499; 62 L. R. A. 174; 64 S. W. 720.

21 Walp v. Mooar, 76 Conn. 515; sub nomine, Walp v. Lamkin, 57 Atl. 277; Squire v. Tellier, - Mass. - ; 69 N. W. 312; Neas v. Borches, 109 Tenn. 398; 97 Am. St. Rep. 851; 71 S. W. 50. Contra, Miller v. Crawford, 70 O. S. 207; 71 N. E. 631.