Los Angeles herald., 1907-08-27
Section Elah

enumerated powers United States VS..
Harris, 1o6 U. s., 629, 6S5.
considersN Section Eight
"The court then considered the powers
conferred on congress by section of
article l, emphasizing it's conclusion that
they bestowed upon congress no authority
over arid lands In the course of the
discussion of that subject the court cited
with approval the canon of construction
laid down by Chief Justice Marshall In
Mccullough VS.. Maryland, Wheat, 4Vo,
adding, Yet while SO construed, 1t sui
is true that no unmeptioned power passes
to the national government or can right
fully be exercised by the congress.
'Examining the claim of the govern
ment that congressional authority over
arid land is given by section of article
w, which prescribes in part that The
congress shall have power to dispose OF
and make needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States the court
says: But clearly it does not grant to
congress any legislative control over the
states, and must, so far as they are con-
cerned. be limited to authority over the
property belonging to the United States
within their limits
"Appreciating the force of this, counsel
for the government relies upon the doc
trine of sovereign and inherent power,
adding, L am aware that in advancing
this doctrine I seem to challenge great
decisions of the court, and l speak with
Difference His argument runs substan-
TALLY along this line: All legislative
power must be vested in either the state
or the national government; no legisla-
tive powers belong to a state government
other than those which affect solely the
internal affairs of that state; conse-
quently all powers which are national IN
their scope must be found vested in the
congress of the United States. But the
proposition that there are legislative
powers affecting the nation as whole
which belongs to, although not expressed
in the grant of powers, is in direct con-
flict with the doctrine that this is
government of enumerated powers. That
this is such a government clearly appears
from the constitution, independently of
the amendments, for otherwise there
would be an instrument granting certain
specified things made operative to grant
other and distinct things. This natural
construction of the original body of the
constitution Is made absolutely certain
by the tenth amendment.
1--WE are not here confronted with
question of the extent of the powers of
congress- but one of the limitations inn
posed by the constitution on its action,
and 1t seems to us clear that the same
rule and spirit of construction must also
be recognized. If powers granted are to
be taken as broadly granted and as car
rying with them authority to pass those
acts which may be reasonably necessary
to carry them into full executions; in
other words, If the constitution in its
grant of powers is to be SO construed that
congress shall be able to carry into full
effect the powers granted, 1T Is equally
imperative that where prohibition or
limitation is placed upon the power OF
congress that prohibition or limitation
should be enforced in its spirit and to its
entirety. 1t would be a strange rule OF
construction that language granting pow
ers is to be literally construed, and that
language of restriction is to be narrowly
and technically construed. Especially is
this true when in respect to grants of
powers there is as heretofore noticed the
help found In the last clause OF the eighth
section, and no such helping clause in re-
spect to prohibitions and limitations. The
true spirit of constitutional interpreta-
tion in both directions is to give full lib
eral construction to the language, aiming
ever to show fidelity to the spirit and
purpose
Just Rule Found
''In this last sentence of Mr.. Justice
Brewer is to be found the just rule by
which the courts, the congress and the
citizen can determine with reasonable
certainty whether proposed federal action
is within its authority or constitutes a
usurpation of the powers of the states.
Is 1t fairly within the spirit and purpose
OF some one of the grants of power? If
so, then the action is justified. Otherwise
he who supports it is not faithful to the
constitution.
"The recent claims for federal interven-
ton in directions heretofore unheard of
are based upon the commerce and post
road provisions of the constitution AS to
the first the constitution says the con-
gress shall have power to regulate COM
merce with foreign nations, and among
the several states and with the Indian
tribes Is it within the spirit and pur-
pose of that provision that congress may
control the manufactures and all other
productive interests of the states, whether
controlled by individuals or corporations,
the creations of the state? The answer
of even a casual student of the constitu
tion and the conditions surrounding its
making must be in the negative. Nor is |
authority lacking to support the PROPOSE |
tion that production Is not commerce |
(Sidd VS.. Pearson, 12s U. s.. y. And 1t Is |
authority to regulate interstate commerce.
not production within state, that the
constitution confers upon congress. An
attempt therefore. to deny to the harm
less and useful products of state entry
into interstate commerce would VIOLATED !