Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1918-03-02
Concerning UnconstitutionAlity.

Lona pr0hlDltlon against eX post IaclO
laws applies only to criminal offenses
and to criminal statutes whereby a
man is punished for an offense under
4 law passed after the offense was com
mitted; and he suggests that it has no
application to the johnson anti profteer-
ing bill.
The purpose and effect of the John
son bill are in The Stars opinion to
create and punish new offense, that of
sestoftions through "rentals usury."
Mr.. johnson indicated in the House
debate that his bill was aimed at sex
teftica in its most Infamous form; that
his effort was ito strike down the glut
tonous rent pfofteer': that he proposed
s'to tax all extoftion to the extent Of
100 per cent Of IT.; that he proposed
first to impose upon extoftioners 'fheavy
penalties in the way of income tax"
and Aezt a. usufefs "to make them pay
baek double the extortion they have
taken" with costs and an attorneys fee.
He pronounced those whom he was pur-
sting TO be "foebers.'
The retroactive and criminal Furnishing
spirit Of the bi. Is shown IN MI, John
s1As dialogue with Mr.. Tinkham. For
examples
Mr.. TiakhAm: "Does the gentleman
know Of any Law passed by any state
or by the United States in relation to
uslry or extortion which provides that
any person who has taken a larger rate
. than was allowed by the law before the
new law was passed should be peaalixea
by the provisions of the new law-Apun.
ished for something which was legal
under the law and the Constitution at
the. time the transaction oceurred'"
Mr.. johnson: 'sThat might not be con-
stitutional II the law were made by a
state, but I do insist it would be con-
stitutional f made by the national leg
islature.s
Indications are many that the real
and Wholesome purpose of the bill is
to psntsA the offense of "extortion"
committed through usury in rentals,
and that BY legislation of 1918 an act of
1917, lawful whom committed, is to be
made fetsoaetsvely an unlawful, punish
able offsasa
The effect Of the bin harmonizes with
lis suggested purpose. Its title indi-
Gates that it Il aimed at extortfon. It
declares "esatsasy to public policy"
and Yields transactions Of 1917, which
were lawful when made, and Furnishes
the new okeAse fetroactively by fine,
Disguised % tar, and for the future, in
addition, By the forfeitures which pun
ish criminal asary.
That hns Tor extortion in 1917 here
masquefades % income tax is obvious.
The so-ealled tax has none of the ear
marks Of genuine and just taxation
The very bill which creates the So
called tax makes unlawful the transac-
ton out Of which it must arise, and in
effect renders any such tax payment
proof OF extortion and rentals usury,
and . part Of the penalty for these Of
lenses.
@Extortioas suggests q criminal offense.
Usury In money is criminal offense in
the District How does the new rentals
usury differ in substance from money
usurys The usnfious money loan is de-
eIa1ed by law "unlawfup and "illegsl"
hereafter. The usurious real estate loan
is made In eject unlawful as CONTRARY
to public policy" The money usurer
forfeits interest and one-fourth of the
principal. The rentals usurer forfeits
double the excess in rentals, and costs of
suit, including not less than $50 attor-
ney fee. The money Insurer is punished
by fne not less than $25 or imprison-
ment. The rentals usurer is punished
by fine equal to the amount of the ex-
cess rentals, to be exaeted by the Dis
trict government. The bill does not call
this exAction fine, but tax. 1t has,
however, in substance the eharaeteris-
tics Of . fine and none of real tax.
Under the bill men and women are
in effect to be convicted of and punished
for "extortion in its most infamous
form" without the protection of iury
trial IN criminal court and without the
requirement Of proof of guilt to over
throw presumption of the aecused's in
nocenee. Does the fact that the bill
abgtains from calling this new offense a
-misdemsanor and eonvicts and Furnishes
without utilizing the criminal court
vitality alter the nature Of the transae-
ton?
If the money usury law had been
applied retreactively it would confessed.
ly have been ex post faeto and 'uncon.
-stitutional. Would the retroactive appli.
cation Of the rentals usury law be in es-
sence less obnoxious to the Constitution
Does verbal camoufage Of . punitive
fine - q tax avoid the constitutions
prohibitionf
The Stars suggestion Of unconstitu.
tionality in respect to the criminal-pun.
fishing provisions Of the johnson bill was
rs follows. "a law that in 1915 Furnishes
as cxtortien BY fine, tax or a for.
feiture any act of 1917 that was lawful
innocent and unpunishable when com,