Evening star., 1918-02-27
No Ex Post Facto Law.

No Ex Post Facto Law.
| The Constitution forbids unqualiAedly
the passage of any ex post facto law
| lature. 1t forbids impairment OF the
obligation Of n contract by any state
legislature. 1t does not specifically
forbid Consre.s from psr.ins law Inn
But the basic. inherent, repulsive In
equity of such law II to be recognized
And when Congress ia not legislating
for the nstion. but is serving under the
| the unrepresenfated peopls 81 the Dis
trict Of Columbia, 1t should in fairnes:
and decency respect a 2 seh.inposed
limitation the prohibition against I'M
which the Constitution imposes upon
every one of the states; and which near
ly all the states brand as abhorrent by
imposing the additional prohibition OF
the state constitutions.
Congress. serving as state legisia-
ture Of the District. should not take
mean advantage of the fact that 1t Is
not specifically forbidden as nauona!
contracts. In Regulating equitably for
the unrepresented and helDleas District
Of Columbia 1t should refrain even
more scrupulously than II under spe-
despotic oppressive violation of nm item,
Of the bill OF rights OF the citizens OF
every American state.
Only in respect to nationwide taxa
ton for war purposes does the Consti-
tuition seem to be suspended, or for the
time given new constructions. If Mr..
Johnsons tax were war excess proflts
tax. to be applied nationally. and the
proceeds were to go to win this war.
Washington would not object to it.
to apply to the whole country and
every congressman to his own con-
stttuents Washington will cheerfully
and patriotically endure. even II 1t be
retroactive and apply to 1917.
Unmistakably Unconstitutional.
In his recent debate with Mr.. Tnl1ham
Mr.. johnson seemed to contend that Con-
Eress was not prohibited by the constitu-
ton from passing an ex post facto law
| See Congressional Record. page 227s:
| "Mr. Tinkham: Does the gentleman
know of any law passed by any state or
by the United States in relation to usury
or extortion which provides that any
person who has taken a larger rate than
is allowed before the new law was passed
should be penalized by the provisions OF
the new law-punished for something
which was legal under the law and the
Constitution at the time the transaction
occurred? Mr.. johnson: That might not
| be constitutional il the law were made
lby a state. but I do insist that it would
| be CONSTITUTIONAL IL Iuduo ny llo lLdlloLdl
Does not Mr.. johnson confuse the
constitutional prohibition against i'm
| pairment of the obligation Of contracts
which applies only to states and not to
| the United States, with the prohibition
against the passage of an ex post facto
law, which applies both to the states
and to the United States?
| The prohibition of the passage OF
an ex post facto law by Congress is
so sweeping and unqualified that
| Congress Is forbidden to pass such a
law at any time or place or in any
capacity, even in respect to "appurte-
nant" territory Of the United States
not within the United States, like
Porto Rico and the Philippines.
See Supreme Court decisions of in
sular cases. especially Mr.. Justice
Brown in Downes VS.. Bidwell, wherein
he says:
There is a clear distinction between
| such prohibitions as go to the very
root of the power OF Congress to net a,
all, irrespective OF time and place. anc
such as are operative only through
out the United States or among The
several states Thus when the Con
stitution declares that mo bill of at
tainder or ex post facto law shall b.
passed, it goes to the compe
tency of Congress to pass a bill of tina
description"