Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-25

|
| cept Federal funds and supervision.
| Massachusetts,, Illinois and Connecticut
rejected the Federal child hygiene offer,
/ but with these exceptions, every State
has accepted virtually every subsidy Of
| fered by Congress. In many cases the
States have not only matched the Fed
eral funds, but have expended sums far
in excess of the Federal-aid payments.
Questions of COnstitutiOnaIity.
The constitutional right of the Fed
eral Government to grant subsidies to
the States, since the principal subsidy
measures deal with matters reserved ex-
| clusively to the States under the Con-
stitution, has been questioned by many
| opponents of the system. Defenders Of
the system have found it difficult mean
while to point to any constitutional au-
thoriZation for Federal aid to the
States.
The first Morrill, act granting lands
for the endowment of State agricultural
colleges was vetoed by President Bu-
chanan and appropriations for the
Cumberland Highway were vetoed on
constitutional grounds by President
Monroe in 1922. President Jackson in
vigorous message vetoed a measure
appropriating money for the MaySville
road, contending that the appropria-
ton was for local project which was
not generally beneficial to the Nation.
The authors of the Federal-aid road
act of 1916 sought to give 1t constitu-
tional standing by basing it upon the
postal clause of the Constitution. The
act was entitled IAN act to provide that
the United States shall aid the States
in the construction of rural post roads,
and for other purposes" In section 2
of the act it was provided that for the
purposes of this act the term rural
post road shall be construed to mean
any public road over which the United
States mails now are or may hereafter
be transported This definition is
broad enough to cover any rural high
way. The conStitutionality of this act
some of the subsidy measures more re-
Gently enacted.
In 1922 when a bill for acceptance Of
the maternity subsidy was before the
Massachusetts Legislature, the question
of the power of Congress to enact such
legislation was raised The attorney
general of Massachusetts, rendered an
opinion that the maternity act was IAN
attempted exercise Of power over the
subject of maternity and infancy, and
thus an incursion into the field of the
States by the tenth amendment" The
attorney general further held that the
property rights of the citizens of Massa-
chusettS were involved, since the moneys
derived from Federal taxation were, in
his opinion, being illegally divided
among the States accepting the ma
ternity act.
A complaint was filed on behalf of
the Commonwealth of Massa chusetts in
October, 1922, in which the alleged I'M
constitutional acts of Congress were
cited, and an injunction sought to re-
strain the enforcement of the maternity
act In December, 1922, taxpayers
suit was instituted in which it was al
legged that the act made appropriations
unauthorized by the Constitution
resulting in the taking of her (plain-
tiff's) property without due process OF
law, in violation of the fifth amend
ment." This suit after two adverse
decisions was carried to the Supreme
Court. Briefs in defense of the act were
filed with the Supreme Court on behalf
of 10 States-Arkansas, Arizona, Colo
RADIO, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky,
Minnesota, oregon, Pennsylvania and
Virginia. Both suits were dismissed by
the Supreme Court for want of juris-
diction. Although the decision was
rendered on technical grounds, its form
was such as to preclude the bringing OF
other suits to test the conStitutionallty
of other subsidy measures. In deliver
ing the opinion of the court in the
Massachusetts case, Justice Sutherland
said: In the last analysis, the COM
plant of the plaintiff State is brought
to the naked contention tfIav Congress
has usurped the reserved power of the
several States by the mere enactment
of the statute, though nothing is to be
done without their consent; and 1t is
plain that the question, as 1t is thus
presented, is political and not judicial
in character, and therefore is not a
matter which admits of the exercise OF
the judicial power"
Although the merits of the question
of the constitutionality of the maternity
act were not discussed in either case,
because the court found that justi-
ciable question was not presented, the
decision of the court Is regarded as hav-
ing closed all avenues of attack against
the subsidy laws on constitutional
grounds.
State Contributions and Returns.
Wide discrepancies between the
amounts contributed by the States in
taxes to the Federal Treasury and the
DIODOTIlOIldLC
States In the form Of Federal subsidies
are frequently pointed out as showing
the injustice of the subsidy system TO
the large taX-paying States. The State
of New York, for example, contributed
3O.7 per cent of all Federal taxes In
1880 and received only So per cent OF
the funds distributed as Federal aid.
wyoming, on the other hand, con-
tributed only two-hundredths OF per
cent of the Federal taxes and received
Ia per cent of the Federal subsidies.
The Case for Federal Aid.
Proponents of the Federal-aid sys-
tenn and its extension rest their case on
five grounds. They say % 1t stimulates
State interest and State activity; CD 1t
brings about a certain degree OF uni
formity without ignoring differences in
local needs; 80 it raises local standards
and establishes a national minimum OF
efficiency; "a it equaliZes to some eX-
tent the tax burdens of the States; CD
it recognizes and reaffirmS the principle
Of local autonomy.
And they have come to the following
conclusions:
/. Federal aid has not resulted in at
tempted Federal domination. There has
been no unreasonable Federal interior
ence Win SLaIS pOllCleS oI Will Cile ue-
tails of State administration.
2. 1t has not succeeded in eliminating
State politics.
3. It has tended, however, to reduce
the amount of State politics and has
increased greatly the efficiency of State
workers originally selected for political
reasons.
4. The Federal bureaus administer
ing the subsidy laws are free from poll
tics.
5. The thoroughness of Federal SUI
pervision varies greatly from bureau to
bureau. Some bureaus supervise very
carefully; others make little more than
nominal insnections. More thorough