Evening star., 1936-01-07

or general welfare, but for other
objects wholly extraneous. 1t would De
wholly indefensible upon constitu-
tional principles. And he makes it
clear that the powers of taxation and
appropriation extend only to matters
of national, as distinguished from
local welfare.
AS elsewhere throughout the Con-
stitution, the section in question lays
down principles which control the
use Of the power. and does not at
tempt meticulouS or detailed direc-
tions. Every presumption is to be
INDUCED in favor of faithful COM
pliance by Congress with the man
dates of the fundamental law. Courts
are reluctant to adjudge any statute
in contravention of them. But, I'M
der our frame Of government, no
other place is provided where the
citizen may be heard to urge that
the law fails to conform to the limits
set upon the use of a granted power.
When such a contention comes here
we naturally require a showing that
by no reasonable possibility can the
challenged legislation fall within the
wide range of discretion permitted
to the Congress. How great is the
extent of that range, when the sub
ject is the promotion of the general
welfare of the United States, we need
hardly remark. But, despite the
breadth of the legislative discretion,
our duty to hear and to render judg-
ment remains. II the statute plainly
violates the stated principle of the
Constitution we must SO declare.
Scope Of Phrase
Not in Question.
We are not now required to ascer-
tain the scope of the phrase, gen
| eral welfare of the United States"
or to determine whether an appro-
priation in aid of agriculture falls
! within it. Wholly apart from that
question, another principle embedded
in our Constitution prohibits the en-
forcemept of the agricultural adjust
ment act. The act invades the re-
served rights of the States. It is a
statutory plan to regulate and con-
troll agricultural production, mat
ter beyond the powers delegated to
the Federal Government The tax,
the appropriation of the funds raised.
and the direction for their disburse-
ment. are but parts of the plan
They are but means to an unconsti-
| tutional end.
From the accepted doctrine that
the United States is government Of
delegated powers, it follows that those
not expressly granted. or reasonably
to be implied from such as are con-
ferred. are reserved to the States or
to the people. To forestal any sug-
gestion to the contrary, the tenth
| amendment was adopted. The same
proposition, otherwise stated. is that
| powers not granted are prohibited.
None to regulate agricultural produc-
tion is given, and therefore legislation
by Congress for that purpose is for
hidden.
It is an established principle that
the attainment of prohibited end
may not be accomplished under the
pretext of the exertion Of powers
which are granted.
Should Congress. in the execution
Of its powers, adopt measures which
are prohibited by the Constitution;
or should Congress, under the pretext
of executing its powers. pass laws for
the accomplishment Of objects not in
trusted to the Government; it would
become the painful duty of this tribu-
nal. should a case requiring such q
decision come before it, to say that
such an act was not the law OF the
land" MCulloch VS.. Maryland. 4
Wheat. .3l6.423.
Congress cannot, under the pretext
of executing delegated power, pass
laws for the accomplishment OF OBJ
| jects not intrusted to the Federal
| Government. And We accept as es-
tablished doctrine that any provision
| of an act Of Congress ostensibly en-
| acted under power granted by the
Constitution, not naturally and rea-
sonably adapted to the effective ex-
ercise of such power, but solely to the
achievement of something plainly
within power reserved to the States,
is invalid afld cannot be enforced"
Linder VS.. United States, 268 U. S.
S, IT.
Question Is Whether
End Is Legitimate.
These principles are as applicable to
the power to lay taxes as to any other
Federal power. Said the court. in
McCulloch VS.. Maryland, supra, 421:
LET the end be legitimate, let it
be within the scope of Constitution,
and all means which are appropriate.
which are plainly adapted to that end,
which are not prohibited, but con-
sistent with the letter and spirit of
the Constitution, are constitutional"
The power of taxation, which is ex-
pressly granted, may, of course, be
adopted as a means to carry into
operation another power also ex-
pressly granted. But resort to the
taxing power to effectuate an end
which is not legitimate, not within
the scope of the Constitution, is OBJ
viously inadmissible.
Congress is not empowered to tax
for those purposes which are within
the exclusive province of the States"
Gibbons v. Ogden, Wheat. l, 199.
There are, indeed, certain virtual
limitations, arising from the principles
of the Constitution itself. It would
undoubtedly be an abuse of the (tax-
ing) power if so exercised as to i'm
pair the separate existence and inde-
pendent self-government of the States
or If exercised for ends inconsistent
with the limited grants of power in the
Constitution" Veazie Bank VS.. Fen
no. 8 Wall. 533, SAL.
In the child labor tax case, 259
U. S. 20, and in Hill VS.. Wallace, 259
u S. A. this court had before it
statutes which purported to be taxing
measures. But their purpose was
found to be to regulate the conduct
of manufacturing and trading, not in
interstate commerce, but in the
States-matters not within any power
: L..