Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1912-09-26

ton or individual, which fails to
conform to the views of Congress as
to matters beyond the Jurisdiction
Of the federal government.
1t must be conceded that the Judi
ciary in recent years has exercised
with increasing reluctance its power
to question an unconstitutional mo-
tive which may induce Congress to
pass some law otherwise within its
power. In the leading ease of Nc
Culloch v. Maryland, the great Chief
Justice Marshall left no doubt about
the duty of the judiciary, where con-
ceded federal powers are sought to
be perverted for unconstitutional
purposes. He said:
Should Congress, under the pre-
text Of exercising its powers, pass
laws for the accomplishment of OBJ
jects not entrusted to the Govern
ment, it would become the painful
duty OF this tribunal,
to say that such an act was not
the law of the land"
To Marshall, as to the trainers of
the Constitution, the possibility of
the exercise of an u~ndoubted power
for an illegitimate purpose and TO
accomplish an unlawful result, was
clearly recognized.
Care must be taken to distinguish
between the class of cases where the
exercise Of a federal power has an in
cidental, unintentional but never
.theless destructive effect upon some
right Of the people otherwise reserv-
ed, and the other class of cases where
the exercise Of federal power has been
exercised not for any object within
the Constitution but for the palpable.
deliberate and in some cases avowed
purpose of obtaining some end that
is not within the scope of federal
power.
Undoubtedly the Supreme Court in
some of its recent cases has gone far
to sustain federal legislation, sue
as the Oleomargarine Taxing Law
even though the purpose Of the Act
was obviously not to raise revenue
but indirectly to accomplish some
object beyond the scope of federal
power; but the true doctrine Of the
Court, as repeatedly announced.
well stated by Mr.. Justice Harlan, in
the case of Mulger ". Kansas G2
IN. S., 623), where he said:
"The courts are not bound by
mere forms nor are they to be mis-
led by mere pretenses. They are at
liberty-indeed are under the SOL
emn duty-to look at the substance
of things whenever they enter up
on the inquiry whether the legisla-
ture has transcribed the limits
of its authority"
This the Supreme Court has re-
peatedly stated in multiplying st
Statutes, which in substance violated
the Federal Constitution, although
in form purporting to carry out some
purpose admittedly within the pow
er Of the State. There is no logical
reason why the Federal Judiciary
should not apply the same rule to a
Federal Statute and, if so, the Court
must reaffirm the doctrine of John
Marshall. that it will pronounce null
and void the exercise of a federal
power obviously designed not to car
ry out some object that is delegated
to the Federal Government but some
object that is beyond it's power.
The present question pointedly
raises this question. Looking beyond
the form and to the substance, 1t il
obvious that Congress by this rider
to the Post Office Appropriation Bill
sought to regulate journalism. The
carriage in the mails is a mere pre-
tense. 1t cannot and does not matter
to the Federal Government whether
the newspapers which it carries con-
tain sworn statements of circulation
and the anne Of the publisher. In
either event they weigh neither more
nor less and IL in the collection OF
postal dues ii Is necessary for the
Post Office Department to know the
responsible owner of a publication or
what its circulation Is, there are
other and more proper methods for
making such inquiry.
SO far as the Federal Government
is concerned, there is no reason why
a newspaper should be obliged +
make public the details or its Susi-
ness Office. 1t is therefore obvious
that this Act is intended to regul1te
Journalism and not the mails. It's
obvious purpose is to acquaint the
ruhIio NTH fha 1uvrorchin ~ ayorv-