stitutional but the question has not yet been
passed upon by the Supreme Court.
It would be venturesome to attempt to predict what the Supreme Court
will do about it. Many constitutional lawyers seem to think that
Congress has succeeded in its attempt and that the act will be
sustained. Certainly there are strong precedents pointing that way.
Three in particular will be relied upon--the Veazie Bank case, the
Oleomargarine case and the Narcotic Drug Act case.
In the Veazie Bank case[1] the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a
so-called tax law whose purpose and effect were to suppress the
circulation of notes of the state banks. In the Oleomargarine case[2]
the Court upheld a tax whose purpose and effect were to suppress the
manufacture and sale of oleomargarine artificially colored to look like
butter. In the Narcotic Drug case[3] the Court upheld a tax imposed by
the so-called Harrison Act[4] whose purpose was to regulate the sale and
use of narcotic drugs. In each of these cases there could be no doubt in
the mind of any intelligent man as to the motive for the enactment. The
Court has uniformly maintained, however, that
when Congress acts within the limits of its constitutional
authority, it is not the province of the judicial branch of
the Government to question its motives.[5]
[Footnote 1: _Veazie Bank v. Fenno_, 8 Wall., 533, decided in 1870.]
[Footnote 2: _McCray v. United States_, 195 U.S., 27, decided in 1904.]
[Footnote 3: _United States v. Doremus_, 249 U.S., 86, decided in 1919.]
[Footnote 4: 38 Stat., 785.]
[Footnote 5: _Smith v. Kansas City Title Company_, 255 U.S., 180, 210.]
In the Narcotic Drug Act case[1] the Court held
While Congress may not exert authority which is wholly
reserved to the states, the power conferred by the
Constitution to levy excise taxes, uniform throughout the
United States, is to be exercised at the discretion of
Congress; and, where the provisions of the law enacted have
some reasonable relation to this power, the fact that they may
have been impelled by a motive, or may accomplish a purpose,
other than the raising of revenue, cannot invalidate them; nor
can the fact that they affect the conduct of a business which
is subject to regulation by the state police power.
[Footnote 1: _United States v. Doremus_, 249 U.S., 86.]
It is true that, while the Supreme Court may not question congressi
|