
    State v. Collins.
    When, it is uncertain whether a state statute is in violation of the federal constitution, a' criminal prosecution thereunder will ordinarily be sustained in order that the question may be decided by the federal court.
    Indictment, for selling a package of oleomargarine not of a pink color, in violation of P. S., c. 127, ss. 19, 20. Verdict, guilty. The defendant is an agent at Manchester of Swift & Co., an Illinois corporation. The corporation manufacture oleomargarine in that state, and put it up in packages, some of which they send to the defendant in Manchester; who sells it in the original packages. The prosecution is for making a sale of that character. The defendant requested the court to rule that the statute is in ■contravention of the constitution of the United States; but the court refused so to rule, and the defendant excepted.
    
      David Cross and Harry H. Loveren, for the defendant.
    
      James P. Tuttle, solicitor, for the state.
   Per Curiam.

The need of a uniform operation of federal law in all the states, and the apparent degree of uncertainty as to the view the federal court may take of the statute upon which the prosecution is based (Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, Bowman v. Railway, 125 U. S. 490, In re Worthen, 58 Fed. Rep. 467, State v. Marshall, 64 N. H. 549, 551, Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 685, Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25), are reasons for a disposition of the case that will furnish an opportunity to obtain a determination of the question by the federal court, by which alone it can be finally settled.

Hxception overruled.

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred. 
      
      See foot-note on page 80,
     