New Britain herald., 1923-06-04

Washington June 4.-The cases brought to determine the constitu- tionality of the shephard -Tovner ma. ternity act were dismissed for want of jurisdiction today by the supreme court. which refused to pass upon the validity of the law.
 Justice Sutherland. announcing the courts opinion that the cases could not be considered on their merits, pointed out that the cases in which the court hitherto had assumed iuris- diction differed from the maternity cases. which presented only political and not judicial questions.
 What It Really Is.
 The power of congress to make appropriations to accomplish indi- rectly what the courts had held was beyond the constitutional Jurisdiction ot the federal government was ques- tioned by Massachusetts in It's attack i on the maternity act.
 The state alleged that the law and l similar legislation was a. bid to the avarice of the seates to relinouisl their sovereignty in exchange for money unawfuly appropriated from the federal treasury. Having failed in its efforts to intrude itself into the reserved rights of the state through recourse to it's taxing powers and its control over interstate commerce, the state asserted, congress had attempt ed to invade the domains of the states by distributing among them vv4o ra; t,, rf b1,<
 The case was heard in the supreme court on a motion of the United States to dismiss the proceeding, as well as that brought by Harriet A. l rockingham from the courts of the District Of Columbia, where the val idity of the law was sustained. The federal government insisted that the courts had consistently upheld the right of congress to make appropri- atons and had always refused to re- strain the disbursement of such funds. The cases were vitally defec- tive il other respects, the government asserted and did not present con- troversy which the court was re- luired to consider on its merits. It was further argued that Massachu- setts had not brought into court all hose who were entitled to be heard. lad sued the federal government without its consent, and had sought to act in behalf of citizens c vho had not themselves objected to r he law. n The power of congress to make ap- 'ropriations fro mthe general funds lf B almost unlimited, the government J .sserted. From the earliest years in r he country's history, congress had re- made appropriations. it was D aid. relating to matters which it was a ot entitled to regulate. It was as- IT erted that the appropriations made tf nder the maternity and similar acts ere authorized because made for the oi eneral welfare, and did not entrench St pon the powers of any state or state :" ficial. in
 43 States Use It
 Forty-three states had deemed it ise to avail themselves Of the bene- Is Of the act, the government said, B trough their legislatures and 10 by e acts of their governors. If such D' gislation was distasteful to the ates, it was declared, they had rough their voters complete con ol over congress, and could repeal The governments interpretation of re e power of congress under the gen. ra al welfare clause was challenged by "a ose attacking the law, who insisted br was not for the general welfare to raj ake an appropriation to aid part re; class Of the public The situa- scN m was not affected. it was argued the fact. that the exercise of fed be- al powers proposed in if was to he wa ective only with the consent of those 10 accepted the law. It was pointed { that when in the child labor acts a-a ngress had attempted to invade the bIo hts of the states by recourse to it's far Iing and interstate commerce pow an,
 pro (Continued on Eleventh Page.) zo7