Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-16

| was prosecuted. The question, there
fore. arose whether under the act not
only the purchase Is to be presumed
| from the possession but also that the
place of purchase is to be presumed
I and IL so, does the act satisfy the con-
stitutional requirement that IN all crimi-
nal prosecutions the accused shall be
tried in the district in which the offense
| is committed.
The Supreme Court, in declaring the
| law constitutional, held that the
place of purchase Is likewise presumed
and that this provision in the act is a
proper measure in aid of revenue. -Four
| Judges diSsented in the case. Justice
McReynolds delivered an opinion, in
which he maintained that the presump-
ton of the place of purchase is uncon-
stitutional. Justice Butler dissented on
the additional ground that there was
no evidence in the record that the de-
PENDANT purchased the morphine or
that when he did purchase the drug
that 1t was not in an original stamped
package. Justice Brandeis dissented on
the ground that the crime in this case
was not merely detected. but was insti-
gated by the Government agents, and
therefore the Governments evidence
should not have been admitted. Justice
Sanford diSSented on the ground that
the Government had not made out a
prina facie case.
Another provision in the Harrison
narcotic act made 1t unlawful for any
person to sell narcotics except on writ
ten order Of the person to whom 1t is
sold, on a form % be issued in blank
for that purpGEe by the Commissioner
Of tn Tho Tipottit CO,,rf
of Appeals for the eighth circuit re-
quested the Supreme Court to rule on
the question whether this provision
means that only persons who are re-
quired to register and pay the taxes
may sell narcotics. or whether it is
applicable to all persons; and If it is
applicable to all persons, whether the
act Is constitutional The Supreme
Court held the provision applicable to
all persons and that the statute is a
proper measure in aid of the revenue
powers of Congress.
Three justices diSsented. Justice
Butler, with whom Justice Sutherland
concurred, maintained that this provision
was applicable only to dealers in mar
coticS who are required to register and
pay the tax. Justice McReynolds main
tanned that as interpreted by the ma
jority opinion, the statute is unconsti-
tutional: that as applied to dealers in
narcotics this may be a revenue meas
ure, but any application beyond that is
not within the powers of Congress; that
Congress cannot under the guise of tax
alton undertake 20 regulate the habits
OF the people because such powers are
reserved to the States, respectfully, or
to the people"
In a number Of cases which oues-
toned the constitutionality of acts of
Congress, and the lower courts ruled
in favor Of their validity, the Supreme
Court declined to review the decisions
altogether. The Federal Trade Com
mission act was the subject of attack
in two cases. In one case 1t was main
tanned that the act is unconstitutional
because, while 1t declares unlawful a
vast field of human conduct, it is a
penal statute, and as such fails to set
forth the elements necessary to con-
stitute the offense. The Supreme Court
declined to review the decision of the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the
second circuit, which sustained the
commissions order in the case.
The Trade Commission act provides
that the commissions findings as to
facts, If supported by testimony, shall
be conclusive. In an appeal from an
order of the commission directing a
wholesale grocers' association to cease
and desist from certain unfair practices,
1t was maintained that this provision is
an unconstitutional delegation Of jul