The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-04-16
QUESTION INTENT
FEDERAL STATUTE
Suggest That Intent Of
Congress Is Proper In
Quiry Of Court

.'' '''.N NN''.NN t.'I'N NNIN 'Ah'HN I'||'
Co reach the supreme court iu recent
years, involving the extent to- which
tho courts will interpret tho mo
tlNCs' eff congress in dctcrmiulng
the rOustltutloupllty uf lis exercise
of the right go imposes excise taxes.
was presented In the child labor
cases.
These cases. three ln number.
came from north carolina, whore
tine United states district courts held
that the excise tax lowed by CONF
gross upon mines aud factories ctn-
pluylnE child labor was an uuouu-
st|ltutiuuul cnCrouuhWcut upon the
puorogttlNus of tine states iu the %
orriso of their police powers, The
Same issue was presented TO tho
court 600 tho "uIturo trading art'
case, brought by members OF the
Chicago Board of trade.
solicitor general iu presenting the
NioWs OF the government commended.
the people, and not tho courts.
should inquire into the object OF
congress ln lc,yiuE taxes which may
have tho effect ot extending federal
control into tho field OF regulatory
governmental activity formerly cX-
clusively occupied boy the state. I'm
less the supreme court adopted that
doctrine, aud as one OF the three co..
ordinate branches OF tho govern
inent refused TO investigate the
motives Of congress ln cuactIug
excise tax legislation. tho nation. ho
insisted, would be confronted with
"a serious dilemma"
The court should hold that such
a tax imposed by congress cannot
no huIliilcd by Httrlhuting TO CON
kf'ss an Interior motive, the solicitor
general insisted, declaring that
otherwise IAN intolorable burden
may be put upon the court" and
I'I"li' IL IN the tuiuro tu determine
the purpose which congress may
nave had an tho enactment OF any
Tax law which may DC challenged.
Ihc solicitor general frankly stated
mat should the court refuse to qIps-
tlon the motives" Of congress. then
10 would be possible FOR tho powers
or u federal government 60 hu
utilized To ocure obJuctiyog which
an" beyond th" scope of federal
power
EnCrnnCIimrnt Unnn Stntcs
Opponents uf the ohIld labor law
/ coutcudod that the court ghould take
judicial notice of whnt y,s ,bor,r.
/ tcrizud as tho rongt,ut nrro,,hnrp
I OF congress upon the strictly local
affairs of the states and ,op-Idrr
the motive behind each federal law
regardless Of whether IL imposcd an
excise tax. They polntcd out maj
when the suppcmc court hold mn
constitutional the former child labor
act, I'm which tho ]ncnoltv 80 ,ba
exclusion Of child labor products
from Interstate commerce. congress
promptly rc-cnactcd IL I'm the form
OF the present law hy merely suhstl-
tutinR an excise tax as tho ponalty.
II was insisted thar the court never
intended that such regulatory mcas-
ures, oncroaching upon tho police
powers of the states. could be made
legally effective by merely "a change
In tho form OF penalty imposed.
Tho government set forth htat
TWO Of the three cases brought that
oppose the enforcement OF the law
should be dismissed because I'm ono
OF them, the Aihorton mills case. the
issue had become moot, the youth
I'm whose behalf IL had been instl-
tutod having while n was pending
In the courts. reached an ago which
exempted him from lts application.
while In the other. that involving
John j. George, trading as thc
Vivian cotton mills. and others. Tho
tax had not been paid. and WINS
therefore Improperly iu court. The
third, however, that brought bv tho
DftNol Furniture company. could
not be disposed Of upon technical
tics, the government said, and pre-.
scented q test OF the law which must
ho met.
Question Object In View.
Tho question presented. as tho
government saw n, was whether au
act or congress imposing AN excise
TAX could be invalIdntod on the
assumption that Tho real motive
was not 10 collect revenue but to
regulate child labor.
Tho discretion OF congress In de-
termininR what should be mndo the
subject OF an excise tax, the solicitor
general contondcd vas limitloss with
the mn exception that 10 glnuot be-
used 10 destroy the pIroly govern
mental agencies Of tho states. with
out such Il limitation. he said. vthc
uu"l FORM OF government should not
continue. lie added that while the
courts would sun that the object
OF the TAX Wa To raise rcynuc ~
was not necessary 20 sustain the CON
tlllullonnllly Of the child labor Law,
10 prove Ihal surh would DC It's Ct-
l',l
INC government further suggested
'h presenting arguments that whore
u sl"'ulo prohibited the doing ut an
H,' ana imposed q preunIary pun
lHlll'hl Tor llh violation, 20 was a