Milford chronicle., 1935-12-13
NEW DEAL ACTS
HIT TWICE BY
SUPREME COURT
[ContiMned. from First Pagel

view that this was a definition of
the states rights question, involving
section of the Federal warehouse
act providing for punishment by the
United States in the theft of a bale
Of cotton, was not taken by the
court. The justices agreed, however,
that the Federal district court for
northern Mississippi had acted cor
rectly in dismissing an indictment
IN the theft.
Before turning to oral arguments
on the validity Of the administration
farm-aid program, which also in
wolves the question of possible Fed
eral trespass on state powers, the
justices decided 16 other cases, and
announced they would review 80
controversies appealed from lower
courts.
The HOLC and liquor opinions,
were considered of greatest signifi-
canoe in further defining the limi-
tations which the court places upon
Federal powers as restricted by the
Constitution.
HOLC Violates State Rights
In the Home Loan case, Justice
Cardozo asserted that there has
been an illegitilnate encroachment
by the government of the nation
upon a domain of activity set apart
by the Constitution as the province
OF the states" The opinion added:
mo question is here presented as
to the scope of the war power or of
: .r &c
the power to regulate transactions
affecting interstate or foreign COM
Inerce.
1.-The effect of these, if they have
any, upon the powers reserved by
the Constitution to the states or to
the people will be considered when
the need arises.
"The Home Owners Loan Act to
the extent that it permits the con-
Federal ones in cOntravention of
the laws of the place of their crea-
tion, is an unconstitutional en-
croachment upon the reserved pow
ers of the States"
Liquor Tax Called Penalty
The liquor decision was on APP
peals in cases against Gus L. Con-
stantine, of Birmingham and Ber-
nOrd Roberts and Roger Kesterson |
Of Tulsa. The tax of as much as
$1,000 Onsillicit dealers in dry States |
was imposed under a 1926 revenue
law.
Holding that the purpose of the
tax was to impose a penalty as a
deterrent and punishment of un-
lawful conduct" Roberts said it is
a "clear evasion of the police pow
er, inherent in the States, reserved
from the grant of powers to the
Federal Government by the Consti-
tuition.
I'VE think the suggestion has
never been madc-certainly never
entertained by this cOurt-that the
United States may impose cumula-
tive penalties above and beyond
those specified by State law for in
fractions of the States criminal
code by its own citizens.
"The affirmation Of such a propO-
sition would obliterate the distinc-
tion between the delegated powers
VI lNG EGfCl dA EONCA MAuCuJ anu
those reserved to the states and to
their citizens. The implications I
from a decision sustaining such an I
imposition would be startling.
"The concession Of such a power l
would open the door to unlimited I
regulation of matters Of state con- !
Germ by Federal authority. The reg
ulatiOn of the conduct of its own
citizens belongs to the State, not to I
the United states. The right to inn
pose sanctions for violations of the
States laws inheres in the body of !,
its citizens speaking through their =
representatives. So far as the reser- =
Vations of the tenth amendment ire .
specific powers to states) :.
we're qualified by the adoption of =
The eighteenth amendment, the !.
qualification has been abolished. n