Evening star., 1936-01-07
JPREME COURTS DECISION INVALIDATINC A. A. A.

serted power Of taxation, the Federal
Government, against the will Of in
dividual States, might completely re-
distribute the industrial population.
A possible result Of sustaining the
claimed Federal power would be that
every business group which thought
itself under-privileged might demand
that a tax be laid on its vendors or
vendees the proceeds to be appropri-
ated to the redress of its deficiency OF
income.
These illustrations are given, not TO
suggest that any OF the purposes men,
toned are unworthy. but to demon
strate the scope of the principle Tor
which the Government contends; To
test the principle by It's applications:
20 point out that, by the exercise Of
the asserted power, Congress would,
in effect, under the pretext Of exer-
cising the taxing power, in reality
accomplish prohibited ends. 1t can
not be said that they envisage i'm
probable legislation. The supposed
cases are no more improbable than
would the present act have been
deemed few years ago.
Until recently no suggestion OF the
existence of any such power in the
Federal Government has been ad-
vanced. The expressions OF the
trainers of the Constitution, the de-
cisions Of this court interpreting that
instrument and the writings of great
! will k1o
for any suggestion that there exists
in the clause under discussion or else
where in the Constitution, the author
ity whereby every provision and every
fair implication from that instrument
may be subverted, the independence
Of the individual States obliterated,
and the United States converted into
a central government exercising un-
controlled police power in every State
| Of the Union, superseding all local
control or regulation of the affairs or
concerns of the States.
Hamilton himself, the leading advo-
cate of broad Interpretation of the
power to tax and to appropriate for
the general welfare, never suggested
that any power granted by the Con-
Stitution could be used for the de-
struction of local self-government in
the States. Story countenances no
such doctrine. 1t seems never to have
occurred to them, or to those who
have agreed with them. that the gen.
eral welfare of the United States
(Which has aptly been termed "an
indestructible Union, composed Of In
destructible States'O, might be served
by obliterating the constituent mem
bers of the Union. But to this fatal
conclusion the doctrine contended for
would inevitably lead. And its sole
premise is that, though the makers
Of the Constitution, in erecting the
Federal Government, intended Sedu-
lousy to limit and define its powers,
so as to reserve to the States and the
people sovereign power, to be welded
by the States and their citizens and
not to be invaded by the United
States, they nevertheless by a single
clause gave power to the Congress TO
tear down the barriers, to invade the
States jurisdiction, and to become a
parliament of the whole people, SUBJ
ject to no restrictions save such as
are self-imposed. The argument when
seen in its true character and in the
hight of its inevitable results must be
rejected.
Since, as We have pointed out, there
was no power in the Congress to i'm
pose the contested exaction, it could
not lawfully ratify or confirm what
an executive officer had done In that
regard Consequently the act of 1885
does not affect the rights OF the
parties.
The i1ldpment is affirmed