Evening star., 1918-04-06
Concerning Constitutionality.

representative Ben johnson IN MS
ewn unique anti-profteering campaign
yesterday raided the sacred senatorial
precincts. and vigorously and safely as
saulted the Tinkham rival anti -profiteer-
ing bill, in the absence of its House ad-
vocates and defenders.
Incidentally he cast cruel aspersions
upon the omniscience of The Star as a
eonstruer of the Constitution. Specifi
cally he declared that The Star did not
even distinguish between a retroac-
tive tax law and an ex post facto law,
and did not know that Congress could
eonstitutionally impair the obligation of
contracts.
The Stars criticism of the retroactive
M feature Of the johnson bill was that
The so-called tax was not real tax, but
3 fine for the misdemeanor of rentals
usury, masquerading as tax in order to
avoid the constitutional prohibition
against e1 post facto legislation. This
provision Of the bill was condemned as
: case Of legislative false pretenses.
The Star said of the johnson bill:
It's title indicates that it is aimed at
e1f0rtion. 1t declares CONTRARY to pub
1fe policy and voids transactions of 1917
which were lawful when made, and pun
hAes the new offense retroactively by
- hne, disguised as tax, and for the
future, in addition, by the forfeitures
which punish criminal usury
That fine FOR extortion in 1917 here
masquerades as income tax is obvious.
The sp-caHed tax has none of the ear
marks of genuine and just taxation.
Tho very bill which creates the so-ealled
tax makes unlawful the transaction out
ct which 1t must arise, and in effect rem
ders any such tax payment proof of ex-
stortion and rentals usury, and a part of
The penalty for these offenses.
Extortion' suggests criminal of
1ense. usury in money is criminal Of
&ense in the District. How does the new
.tentals usury differ in substance from
Money usuryf The usurious money loan
= declared by law unlawful and fil-
Dg1P hereafter. The usurious real es-
t1te loan is made in effect unlawful as
scentrary to public policy The money
H1urer forfeits interest and one-fourth
~ the principal The rentals usurer for
4c1fs double the excess in rentals, and
NogtS Of suit, including not less than $50
attorney fee. The money usurer is pun
led by fine not less than $25 or
imprisonment. The rentals usurer is
Znnished by fine equal to the amount
~ the excess rentals, to be exacted by
t1e District government. The bill does
nok call this exaction fine, but tax.
~ has, however, in substance the char
6steristies Of fine and none of a real
III the money usury law had been
nDplied retroactively it would confessed
have been ex post facto and uncon-
f5tufional Would the retroactive ap-
o1ieation Of the rentals usury law be in
ence less obnoxious to the Constitu-
15ons Does verbal camouf1age of puni-
t5xe fine as q tax avoid the constitutional
Jrohibitionp
The Stars suggestion of unconstitu-
1icnality in respect to the criminal pun
thing provisions of the johnson bill was
- effect that q law that in 1918 pun
1hes as extortion by fine, disguised as
b fax, any act of 1917 that was lawful,
fgnscent and unpunishable when com
lifted is in essence an ex post facto
~, and that Congress would not enact
(neh q law either for the nation, in
Glnding the District, or for the District
|S1one.
The Stars confidence that Congress
Would not enact Law which thus, when
txipped Of camoufage, violated certain
" the spirit and probably the letter
pf the Constitution was fully justified.
The House itself wisely and properly
nd without dissenting vote cut out
Ais obnoxious and abhorrent provision.
Nothing has appeared in The Star to
Iuestion the power of Congress to inn
mir the obligation of contracts. On
his point The Star said:
IF Congress is to legislate for the Dis
Fict solely in this matter, taking the
Rlsce Of its state legislature under the
Ten Miles Square provision, it should
impose upon itself serupulously every
onstitutional limitation and prohibition
vhieh applies to either state or nation.
The Constitution forbids impairment
the obligation of \ contract BY any
tAte legislature. II does not specificai-
y forbid Congress from passing a law
nDairing the obligation of a contract.
put the basic, inherent, repulsive in
qaify Of such law Is to be recognized,
md when Congress is not legislatinp
pc the nation, but is serving under the
onstitution as state legislature for the
Represented people of the District of
olnmbia, it should in fairness and de-
e1ey respect as a self-imposed hmita-
IN the prohibition against impairment
the obligation of contracts, which the
|cnstitution imposes upon every one of
Pc states; and which nearly all the
Ates brand as abhorrent by imposing
p additional prohibition of the state
institutions.
Congress. serving as state legislature
the District, should not take mean
Evantage of the fact that it is not spe-
1ealiy forbidden as national legisla.
re to impair the obligation Of con-
nets. In legislatink equitabiy for the
xppresented and helpless District of
ambfa II should refrain even more
FuDulously than II under specific con.
fufional eompulsion from despotae Oh
bivs violation of an item Of the bill
rights ef the citizens Of every Ameri-
j btafe."
ne Star has recognized that the ma