Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1912-09-25

pass laws for the accomplish
ment of objects not entrusted to
the government, 1t 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 undoubted power for
an illegitimate purpose and to accom-
plish an unlawful result. was clearly
recognized.
Care must be taken TO distinguish
exercise of a federal power has an
incidental, unintentional but neverthe-
less destructive effect upon some right
of the people otherwise reserved, 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, such as
the oleomargarine taxing law, even
though the purpose of the act was OBJ
viously not to raise revenue but indi-
rectly to accomplish some object be-
the true doctrine of the court, as re-
peatedly announced. is we'll stated by
Justice Harlin in the case of Mugler
vs. Kansas (123 U. s., 623), where he
said:
The courts are not bound by
mere forms nor are they to be
misled by mere pretenses. They
are at liberty-indeed are under
the solemn duty-to look at the
substance of things whenever they
enter upon the inquiry whether
the legislature has transcribed
the limits of its authority"
This the supreme court has repeat
eddy stated in multiplying state stat
utes, which in substance violated the
federal constitution, although in form
purporting to carry out some purpose
admittedly within the power 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 doc
trine of John Marshall, that it will
pronounce null and void the exercise
of federal power obviously designed
not to carry out some object that is
delegated to the federal government
but some object that is beyond its
power.
The present question pointedly
raises this question. Looking beyond
the form and to the substance, it is
obvious that congress by this rider to
the postofTice appropriation bill sought
to regulate journalism. The carriage
in the mails is a mere pretense. II
cannot and does not matter to the
federal government whether the
newspapers which it carries contain
sworn statements of circulation anC
the names of the publisher. In eithel
event they weigh neither more no
less and II in the collection of posta
/, dues it is necessary for the postoffic
\
owner of a publication or what it
circulation is, there are other ant
, more proper methods for making sucl
inquiry.
So far as the federal government i
concerned, there is no reason why
newspaper should be obliged to max
public the details of Its business OF
Il 10 tharafnro OH
act is intended TO regulate journalism
=. and not the mails. It's obvious pun
pose Is to acquaint the public wit
= the ownership of every publication
and the extent of its circulation, an
while these may be desirable objects
their attainment was clearly not dele
, gated either expressly or by necessar
! Implication to the federal government
:, and not being thus delegated, sue
: right of regulation was under tn
=. tenth amendment expressly reserve
to the states.
Even though the executive depar
ment of the government should herr
after construe this law only to hav
reference TO such newspapers as ar
= given to the postoffice department fc
) circulation, the fact remains that tn
condition upon which such circul;
u ton are offered by the statute have n
II proper relation either to the caTTiae
, OF the mails or to any other FEEDER;
function.
z / have reached this conclusion upO
; the fundamental question of the lac
Of federal power, but it might also /
rested upon the express limitation {
i the constitution, which provides thu
10 Congress shall make no law
20 abrdgeing the freedom
-, of speech or Of the press"
q It will be noted that this prohit
e ton is not against the destruction
q the freedom OF the press but II
"abriigement" of the freedom of II
10 press. If the federal government ha
n. any general power, under the preteni
y o. regulating the mails, to regula
~ journalism, can it abridge the freedo
q Of the press by prohibiting the pu
If lication OF a newspaper unless u
. owner will publish the fact Of sue
p ownership and the extent of its Giro
"a lation? While 1t is not necessary
aynrasa an Opiuir,n upOn this Doiut