*1 UNITED STATES BUTLER et al., RECEIVERS v. OF HOOSAC MILLS CORP. Argued January No. 401. 9, 10, December 6, 1935.—Decided 1936. *3 Reed, after orally, stating Solicitor General the case: *11 printed argument Extracts from the for the Govern- ment, signed by Attorney General Cummings, Solicitor Reed, Assistant Attorney General General Wideman, As- Morris, sistdnt General Attorney and Messrs. Sewall Key, Sharpe, D. Andrew Robert N. Anderson, Alger Hiss, White, Mastin and Prew Savoy. G. *19 argument George
Oral of Mr. Wharton- Pepper, for re- spondents.
25' *36 Hale -and Edward-R. Bennett Sanderson Messrs. closed respondents. for argument Jr., A. James Montgomery, Smith, J. Jr., Willison Edmund M. Toland: *39 General Reed
Solicitor closed the argument: *43 delivered the of the opinion Roberts Justice Mr. Court. pro- must determine whether certain
In this case we Adjustment Act, 1933,1conflict Agricultural of the visions Federal Constitution. the with captioned “Agricultural I of statute Ad-
Title is 1 that recites an economic justment.” emergency Section of to between the arisen, disparity prices agricul- due has consequent and other with commodities, destruction tural and power breakdown in purchasing farmers’ orderly of in which, have affected exchange, transactions in turn, a with national public commodities agricultural interest and obstructed the normal currents of and burdened com- of legislation. for the enactment merce, calling 1 25, 31. May 48 Stat. 12, 1933, c. Congress: of policy be the it to declares
Section between such balance maintain and “To establish commodities, agricultural of consumption production'and reestablish therefor, as will marketing conditions such and agricultural will give that at a level to farmers prices respect with to articles power a purchasing commodities2 of power the purchasing to buy, equivalent farmers that base period.”’ commodities agricultural in other cotton, and all in the of case period, base The as that between- designated tobacco, is except commodities July, 1914. August, 1909, to the approach are an announced policies The further inequali- by present correction equality gradual desired in view deemed feasible “at as a rate is rapid ties as foreign in domestic and demand consumptive the current by of consumers’ interest markets,” and the protection *44 in- farm such level will not production at as readjusting the of consumers’ retail percentage expenditures crease the or products commodities derived there- agricultural for returned to from, farmer, percent- which is the above the him in the period. returned to base age 8 that provides, amongst things, other “In Section nolicy,” Secretary effectuate the the of to declared order have power shall Agriculture for in the acreage reduction or reduc-
“(1) To provide for or of market, both, any tion in the basic production commodity, through agreements with agricultural produc- for by voluntary and to methods, provide or other ers therewith or payments.in rental or benefit connection agricultural of the of basic part production any that upon for in required consumption, domestic commodity such fair Secretary reasonable, the deems and amounts as to 2 wheat, cotton, com, hogs, rice, field denominates to Section 11 agricultural products, commodities,” “basic milk and its bacco, and to by legislation. been added later apply. Others have is to the act which paid be of any moneys out available for such pay- ments. ...”
“(2) To enter into marketing agreements with proces- sors, associations of producers, engaged and others in the in handling, foreign the current of interstate or commerce of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, after due notice and' for opportunity to interested hearing . parties. . .” To
“(3) issue licenses permitting processors, associa- tions of producers, and others to in engage the handling, in the of commerce, current interstate or foreign any agricultural or commodity product any or com- thereof, commodity or thereof.” peting product It be that will observed is Secretary required, not but is in his uncontrolled if, permitted, judgment, the pol- icy of the act will be to make promoted, agreements so with individual for reduction farmers á of acreage or pro- such terms as he think fair upon may duction and reason- ' able. (a) enacts: Section extraordinary
“To obtain revenue for expenses incurred national emergency, reason of economic by there shall as taxes hereinafter be processing provided. levied When Agriculture Secretary determines that rental oi] to made are be with payments respect any benefit to basic he commodity, shall agricultural proclaim such determi- shall in a tax be effect nation, processing with respect from the of the commodity beginning to such marketing *45 following next the date of (cid:127)year therefor such proclama- tax levied, The shall be processing tion. and assessed, ,domestic processing the of upon collected the com- first of production domestic or modity, whether imported, and by'the processor. ,, . shall be'paid may from time to Secretary time,
The if he finds it effectuation of the of policy for the the re- necessary act, the of exaction to meet adjust amount the require- thé 56
ments of (b). subsection The at the tax is to terminate end of any year if rental marketing pay- the or benefit ments by Secretary expira- are discontinued the the with tion of that year.
Section 9 the (b) “at as equals fixes the tax such rate difference between for the current farm average price the commodity in and the fair exchange value,”’ power with the hearing, after to Secretary, and investigation, notice, readjust of tax sur- the so as to the accumulation prevent plus stocks and of farm depression prices. a (c)
Section 9 of exchange directs that fair value the commodity shall that com- price give be such a as will modity same to. articles purchasing respect the with power buy farmers as it had and that the during the base period fair exchange farm average price value current and the of a commodity by Secretary' shall from be ascertained the available in statistics his department. 12 (a)
Section appropriates $100,000,000 “to be avail- able to the of for Secretary Agriculture administrative under expenses this title and for rental and benefit payments . . .”; (b) and appropriates proceeds the § “ derived from all-taxes avail- imposed under the act to be Secretary Agriculture able to the for of mar- expansion kets and removal of surplus agricultural products . . . expenses, rental and payments, benefit administrative refunds on taxes.” (d) Section 15 the certain con- permits Secretary, upon in impose compensating to taxes on ditions, commodities the subject with to tax. competition processing those sale, By a floor tax or other imposed upon is § in any wholly of. article or chief disposition processed any commodity value from with to which a respect proc-. in equivalent tax is to be levied amount to that essing respect tax which would be processing payable with if commodity from which the is processed to the article on the had occurred date when the processing processing becomes tax effective.
57 14, 1933, Secretary On the of with July Agriculture, President, the of that had approval proclaimed the he rental and benefit payments determined be made should with marketing to that the for that respect cotton; year 1, commodity begin August 1933; was to and calculated and fixed the of rates and floor taxes on processing cotton in accordance with the terms of the act.
The United States a the presented claim to respondents as receivers of the for Corporation Hoosac Mills processing and floor on taxes cotton levied under 9 and 16 of the §§ act. The receivers recommended that the claim be dis- allowed. The District Court found the taxes valid and ordered them paid.3 Upon appeal the of Circuit Court Appeals reversed the order.4 The judgment review under was prior entered to the of adoption the of amending act August 1935,5 are 24, we therefore only concerned with original act.
First. At the outset
the United States contends' that
standing
have no
respondents
question
to
the validity
of the tax. The
is that
position
is
act merely a reve-
nue measure levying an
upon
excise
the activity of proces-
sing cotton,
proper subject for the imposition
such
of
—a
a tax,
proceeds
go
of which
into the federal treasury
—the
and thus become available for appropriation
any
for
pur-
pose.
It is said that what the respondents are endeavor-
ing to
is to challenge
do
the intended use
money
of the
pursuant
Congressional
to
appropriation
by
when,
confes-
sion, that money will have become the property of the
Government and -the
will
taxpayer
no longer
any
have
in-
terest in it. Massachusetts v. Mellon,
in the petitioners’ favor if we were here merely concerned with a a by suit taxpayer to restrain the expenditure- *47 the public moneys. It was there taxpayer held that a of the United may question States not expenditures from its treasury on ground the that the unlawful alleged diver- will deplete the public sion. funds and thus increase the burden of future taxation. Obviously the’ asserted inter- of est a taxpayer in the federal government’s funds and the supposed increase of the future burden of taxation is and minute- indeterminable. But here the respondents who are called upon to pay moneys taxes, as resist the exaction step as a in an unauthorized plan. This circum- ’ stance clearly distinguishes the case. in The Government and substance effect asks us to separate the Agricultural Adjustment Act into two statutes, the one levying an ex- cise on processors of certain commodities, the other appro- priating public the moneys independently of the first. Passing the novel suggestion that two statutes as enacted parts single of a scheme should be as if were they tested distinct and unrelated, we think the legislation now before us susceptible is not of such separation and treatment. tax can only
The be by sustained ignoring the avowed operation and of the purpose act, and holding it a measure merely an excise laying upon processors to raise revenue- government. of support for the Beyond cavil sole the to object legislation df is restore the the power purchasing to a with agricultural products parity of that -prevailing money in to take from day,' an earlier the processor and it farmers6 who will upon acreage bestow their for reduce 6 Department Agriculture, Achieving Agricul of A U. S. Balanced forget ture, p. processing 38: “Farmers should not that all the tax up pockets. money ends in their own Even in those cases where tax, they get they pay part Every the it all of back. dollar collected goes payments.” to the farmer in benefit processing in taxes . Agriculture, Processing Dept, Tax, p. of The U. S. 1: “Proceeds processing passed of payments.” taxes are to as benefit fanners the accomplishment of end, the proposed and, meanwhile to aid these farmers the during bring period required to the of prices their to crops the desired level.
The tax plays indispensable an in part plan regu- of the lation. As by Agricultural’ stated Ad- Adjustment “ “ ministrator, isit the heart of the law a of ”; ac- means one complishing or both two things .help intended to farmers parity prices attain A purchasing power.” tax for automatically goes into effect a commodity when Secretary Agriculture determines that or rental benefit to be payments are for reduction of made produc- tion of commodity. The tax is t'o that cease when rental or benefit The is payments cease. rate fixed with the pur- pose of bringing crop-reduction about and price-raising. “ It equal is to the difference between current aver- *48 ” “ age price exchange farm and fair value.” It may be as altered to such amount will prevent accumulation of If Secretary the surplus stocks. finds the of the policy act will promoted by levy not be the of the for a tax given he commodity, may exempt it. (§11.) The whole levy from the is appropriated revenue in of aid con- crop none of it is made available for trol; general governmental adjustment use. The entire agricultural program embod- in I act to ied Title of the is become inoperative when, in of the judgment President, the national the economic and emergency ends; any commodity as to may he termi- law, if nate of the the he finds them provisions longer no to the requisite out declared carrying policy with respect (§13.) to such commodity. only
The an aim foreign statute not avows to the pro- support of revenue for the of government, curement but by its the exaction operation shows laid upon processors to be the means for the necessary intended control of. agricultural production.
7 Department Agricultural S. Agriculture, U. of Adjustment, p. 9.
In aspects so-called, closely these resembles the tax, “An Act Act by 3, 1882, that the of entitled August laid to court before Regulate Immigration,” which came this in the Head 580. The statute Money Cases, U. S. and paid' directed there collected that be levied, should a fifty of who should duty passenger, cents for each alien from in United by port come vessel a to one the foreign of the Payment to be to the collector States. made was port ship; or of the by master, owner, agent the consignee towas be money Treasury, the was to. into the paid be by Secre- called the and to be used the immigrant fund, regulating of tary Treasury defray of the to the expense relieving immigrants for of immigration, the care effectuating the in of expenses and for the distress, those act. In an- objections presented. to the act were
Various 595): (p. swering them the court said is that objections all these the the true to “But answer taxing power. in instance is not the exercised this power is by owner this statute ship on the imposed The burden that regulation of the commerce —of incident the mere immigra- in commerce which is involved foreign branch tion. ...” ship is about the protecting true not much said is
“It w;ho from the reaps profit man But he is owner. not, himof is there- transaction, The sum . . . demanded duty meaning strictly a tax or within fore, speaking, *49 money raised, though paid The thus of the Constitution. . in to the uses Treasury, appropriated is advance the into of statute, go general support and not to does the of the government.” the appropri- an the exaction was sustained as there
While of “to Congress power a within the plan in element ate question was foreign nations,” no with commerce regulate ques- to raise the standing shipowner of the of made the tion of validity the of the scheme and consequently of the exaction an which incident of it. was
It is inaccurate to and misleading speak of the exaction from processors prescribed by tax, the challenged as act a or say to as a is subject that tax it to no A infirmity. tax, in general the of understanding the in term, and as used signifies the Constitution, an for exaction the of support the Government. The never word has been to thought connote the expropriation money of from one for group the benefit of another. mayWe latter concede that the sort of imposition is constitutional when to effec- imposed regulation tuate of a matter in which both are groups respect interested and in of which there is a of legis- power regulation. lative manifestly justification But no for it can found integral be unless as an part regulation. such The cannot exaction be out of setting, wrested its denomi- for raising nated an excise legalized by ignor- revenue and a its as mere for ing purpose instrumentality bringing end. To about a' desired do this be to would shut our all eyes to than we what can see and others understand. Case, 20, Child Tax S. 37. Labor 259 U. conclude that act is one regulating
We the agricultural tax is mere the a incident of production; that such regula- respondents tion and that the have to standing challenge of the exaction. legality the as not that the is
It does follow act notan exertion of the and the exaction not a taxing tax, true power statute uncollectible. to For, is or the exaction void paraphrase in the Head Money was said Cases (supra), what p. 596, by expedient regulation Congress, if an subject a thisds “ granted of its powers, within one the end be to within is one falling power, attained that act is not because, within a loose and more void, extended sense in the Constitution,” was used is than exaction called tax. .a
62 if re- the that even asserts The Government
Second. appropria- of the the may question propriety spondents fail attack must because their in the statute tion embodied the con- authorizes of the Constitution 8 I, § Article tax. by the raised of the funds expenditure templated controlling the and great the presents This contention awith its decision approach in case.8 We the question in judgment to render responsibility our grave sense of govern- for the established principles accordance with the of the Government. branches ance of all three to the func- as misunderstanding no There should be that It' is said in sometimes of this such a case. tion court control the action or to overrule the assumes a power court misconception. is a This representatives. of the people’s ordained the supreme law of land The Constitution is the All must con- legislation the people. by and established it of Con- lays down. When an the principles form act to in as not challenged the courts is gress appropriately the judicial mandate constitutional to the conforming lay the only duty, has one Government branch of the —to the which is invoked beside article of the Constitution the to decide challenged statute which is and whether does, the or squares the former. All court can latter with qües- judgmeñt upon is to its considered the do, announce 8 questions argued by counsel, presented were but we Other and respondents do not consider or them. The that the decide insist respects delegates legislative power in act numerous the executive to Refining contrary announced in Panama principles Co. v. to the Ryan, Corp. States, v. United 388, Schechter S. and U. 295 U. S. 495; delegation by amending that this unlawful is not cured the act August 24,1935; process exaction is in violation of the due that clause of the Fifth legislation Amendment since the takes their property private use; for a that the floor tax is a direct tax apportionment therefore void for states, Jack amongst as required by I, Article 9; wanting processing and that tax § is uniformity in so violates I, one,, Article 8, clause of the .and § Constitution. it has, called, it if such is may The be only tion. power *51 This nor approves of court neither power judgment. the difficult Its delicate and any legislative policy. condemns and whether the is legislation office is to ascertain declare in with, in or the of, provisions contravention accordance that, duty Constitution; and, having of done its ends.9 the power not what the Federal Govern- The is question in fact ought to but what have been powers ment have to hardly necessary the It reiter- given seems by .people. of in ate is a form that government; every that ours dual state there are two state and the governments, —the Each has all governmental powers States. State United Constitution, save as their such have con- people, by the States, the to States, ferred United denied the or upon The union a govern- to themselves. federal is reserved only It as delegated powers. ment of has such are ex- upon are pressly reasonably it and such as to conferred be from those In implied granted. respect this we' differ from nations all radically legislative without power, where or in or parliament restriction is vested a limitation, other legislative subject no the body except to dis- .restrictions cretion of its members. I, 8, the §
Article of Constitution sundry vests powers in But its Congress. the two of clauses any have bearing of the upon validity the statute under review.
The the Congress third clause endows with power “to among Commerce . . . regulate the several States.” De- reference in its spite a first section ato burden upon, and an of the obstruction normal of currents commerce, the does act' under review purport' not to regulate transac- tions in interstate or foreign10 commerce. Its pur- stated 9Compare Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, , 261 U. 52 S. 544; Mellon, Massachusetts v. 262 447, U. S. 488. protective The enactment of tariff laws has its basis in power the regulate foreign to commerce. See Board Trustees the Uni of of versity Illinois v. United States, 48, 289 U. S. 58. of purely a production, agricultural control the
pose is the paid the prices raise in effort to an activity, local to attempt not does the Government Indeed, farmer. com- basis of the the act on of the validity uphold the case, the present which, purpose for the clause, merce irrelevant. aside as may put be legislation, the to authorize thought The clause —the and col lay “to power Congress the first, upon —confers Excises, to pay Taxes, and Duties, Imposts lect general for the common Defence provide Debts and ” is not contended United States. . . It of the Welfare agricultural to grants regulate power this provision that would legislation that theory such upon production concedes welfare. The Government general promote *52 general qual for welfare” provide “to the phrase that the lay “to and collect taxes.” The view that the power ifies general for the. power provide to wel grants clause the taxing of the has never been power, independently fare, Story Mr. Justice out authoritatively accepted. points color, “it is obvious that under of- adopted were if it that to for ‘provide of the the common words, generality the the of general welfare,? government the and defence government general in a of and is, reality, States United notwithstanding the subsequent enum powers, unlimited true powers.”11 The construction un specific of eration only thing granted that the is is to doubtedly power the of for purpose providing payment funds for the of the tax making provision and for the general debts nation’s wel fare. the Government asserts that
Nevertheless warrant is for the adoption in this clause of the Agricultural found The argument Act. is that Adjustment Congress may ap- the spending authorize and of moneys propriate for the the welfare”; phrase that should “general be liberally on the 11Story, Commentaries of the Constitution States, United I, 907. Yol. ed., § 5th anything construed to cover conducive to national wel- fare; that decision as to promote what will such welfare rests with Congress and alone, the courts may not review its determination; finally that the appropriation under attack was general in for of fact the welfare the United States.
The Congress expressly is taxes to empowered lay to provide for the in general Treasury welfare. Funds the as a result of taxation may be expended only through ap- propriation. (Art. 9, 7.) cl. can never accom- I, They § plish the objects for they which were collected the unless power to as appropriate is broad power as the to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of grant the is that “ to funds be for the public may appropriated provide can- general welfare of the United States.” These words not else would have been used. meaningless, they be not they The conclusion must be were that intended to limit granted power and define the to raise and to expend money. they How shall be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument? foundation of the Nation sharp differences of
Since the have to the true opinion persisted interpretation as of the it phrase. Madison asserted amounted to no more than to powers reference the other enumerated in a the subse of quent section; that, clauses the same as the United government States is a limited and enumerated powers, to tax and grant power for spend general na *53 welfare must be confined to tional the enumerated legis lative fields committed to the In Congress. this view the tautology, mere for phrase is taxation and appropriation may necessary or be incidents of are the exercise of any of legislative the enumerated powers. on Hamilton, the hand, maintained other the clause confers a power sepa from and distinct those rate later enumerated, is re not in meaning by grant the them, stricted of and Congress has a consequently power substantive to tax ap and to 66 only by requirement limited the that it shall
propriate, for the the provide general be exercised to welfare of contention has had of United States. Each the support are entitled to weight. those whose views court has This noticed but has never found question, necessary the to it decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in Commentaries, his the espouses Hamiltonian position.12 shall We not review the of writings men com public and legislative, mentators or discuss the practice. Study of all these leads tous conclude reading that the advocated by Story Mr. Justice the is correct one. While, therefore, to power tax not unlimited, is its confines are in set the clause which confers in it, not those of 8§ which' bestow and legislative define the powers of the Congress.' It that results the power of Congress to au expenditure public thorize of moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power in found the Constitution. adoption
But broader construction leaves the subject power spend to to limitations. Story says:
As “The was, Constitution from its very origin, contem- to be the frame of a plated national government, of spe- cial and enumérated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.”13
Again says: he
“A lay to taxes for the power common defence and gen eral welfare the United States is not in common sense general a is power. It to objects. limited those It cannot constitutionally them.” transcend
That the qualifying phrase must be given' effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his Chapter XIV, passim,. cit. Loc. 13 Loc. cit. 909. § 14 Loc. cit. 922. §
67 known Report Manufactures, well on states that the pur- 15 pose must “general, be not local.” an Monroe, and. of doctrine, Congress advocate Hamilton’s wrote: “Have a the right any to to and appropriate money raise to and. to their will every purpose They and according pleasure? certainly have not.”16 tax Story says that if the be not welfare, for or proposed the common but general defence for extraneous, wholly other it objects wholly would be he upon indefensible constitutional And principles.17 it appropria- makes clear that the taxation and of powers tion national, distinguished extend to of only matters as from local welfare. in
As the Constitution the section throughout elsewhere of question lays control the principles down which the use power, not direc- attempt and does meticulous or detailed tions. in favor of Every indulged is be presumption to of compliance, by Congress faithful with the the mandates law. Courts adjudge fundamental are reluctant to any. in of our But, statute contravention them. under frame of government, place no other provided is citi- the where may zen heard to be that the fails to urge law conform to the limits set upon use granted the of a When power. such ^ contention comes here require naturally we a show- ing by that no possibility reasonable challenged can the wide, fall legislation within the range of per- discretion Congress. great to the How is the mitted extent that is subject when range, the promotion the general hardly of the States, welfare we need remark. United But, of the despite breadth legislative discretion, our duty and judgment to hear to render If remains. the statute violates plainly stated of the principle, Constitution we must so declare. Ill, p.
15 Works, Vol. 250. 16Richardson, Messages Papers Presidents, II, p. of the Vol. 167. cit. Loc. p. 673. *55 of the required scope to ascertain the now We are not “ the United or to de- ” welfare of States general phrase agriculture of an in aid appropriation whether termine another question, from that Wholly apart it. falls within en- our prohibits in Constitution the embedded principle Adjustment act Act. Agricultural of the The forcement is of states. It a rights statutory reserved the the invades agricultural production, control a and regulate plan to govern- to the federal delegated beyond powers matter the of raised, the the funds tax, appropriation ment. The disbursement, parts are for their but of and the direction an means to unconstitutional They are but plan. the end. is a the United States
From the doctrine that accepted not it those follows that delegated powers, of government from such be reasonably implied or to expressly granted, the people. reserved to the or to conferred, are are states as Tenth contrary, to the the any suggestion To forestall other- proposition, The adopted.18 Amendment was same are stated, granted is not powers prohibited. that wise given, is and agricultural production to regulate None for by Congress that is for- legislation purpose therefore bidden. attainment of principle that the a
It an established is may accomplished not be pre- end under the prohibited powers granted. of which are exertion of the text “ in the of execution its Congress, powers, Should by are the prohibited which constitution; measures adopt of pretext under the Congress, executing its should or accomplishment objects of for the laws not pass powers, government; would the painful to the it become intrusted requiring a tribunal, should case such a düty of this de- powers Amendment declares: “The delegated not Tenth 18 The .by Constitution, prohibited by nor the States it to to the United respectively or people.” to the States to the States, are reserved
69 cisión come to it, before that say such an act was not the law of the land.” v. Maryland, Wheat. McCulloch 316, 423. “ Congress cannot, pretext executing of dele- under of gated power, accomplishment objects laws for the pass not entrusted the Federal we accept to Government. And that an any as- established doctrine act of provision Congress ostensibly enacted under powér granted by to the naturally reasonably adapted not Constitution, solely such to the achieve- power effective exercise of but something power within reserved to the plainly ment and cannot be enforced.” v. States, is invalid Linder States, S. 17. 6, United U. *56 the power lay are as to to principles applicable
These the in any power. court, as to other federal Said taxes supra, 421: Maryland, v. McCulloch “ the scope let it be within legitimate, Let the end be appropriate, means which are and all constitution, of the end, are not pro- that which to plainly adapted are which of spirit letter and the with the consist hibited, but -constitutional.” (cid:127)constitution, are taxation, expressly granted, may, is which of power
The carry operation means to into as a course, adopted be of resort to the expressly granted. But also power another legitimate, which not an end is effectuate to power taxing Constitution, obviously of is scope the the not within inadmissible. “ tax to for those purposes empowered not is Congress province of the States.” the exclusive are within which 199. 1, 9 Wheat. Ogden, v. Gibbons limitations, virtual certain arising indeed, are,
“There itself. It Constitution would of the principles the from if so [taxing] power abuse of the exer- be an undoubtedly independent existence and separate the impair toas cised ii the or for exercised ends of States self-government 70 with the limited of in grants power
inconsistent the Con- Fenno, Veazie Bank 8 533, stitution.” v. Wall. 541. Case, In Tax the Child Labor 259 U. and in Hill 20, S. Wallace, 44, v. S. this court U. had before it statutes purported taxing which to be measures. But pur- their found pose was to be to the conduct of manu- regulate facturing and not in interstate in trading, commerce, but states, the not any within power upon conferred —matters Congress by tax levy the Constitution —and the of the a means to The compliance. force court held not a this was use, but constitutional an unconstitutional the abuse of In States, to tax. Linder power supra, v. United held we , tax power that the to could not justify regulation the of of the a the practice profession, pretext raising under of In Constantine, United revenue. States v. S. 287, U. Congress not, we declared that could in the of guise tax, a for impose, sanctions violation of state law respecting liquor. These local sale decisions demonstrate that not, revenue, under the Congress pretext could raising tax on who refuse to lay processors pay a certain price a cotton, exempt agree do, for those who so with the to of benefiting producers. purpose If taxing power may Third. not be used as the in- to a regulation of strument matters of state con- enforce to which respect Congress cern with no has authority in interfere, may it, to as the present be case, employed *57 necessary to raise the to money purchase a compliance Congress which the is powerless to command? The Gov- ernment that whatever might asserts against be said the of the if validity plan it is compulsory, constitutionally the because end is accomplished sound by voluntary co- There are two operation. sufficient to answers the con- The regulation tention. is not in fact The voluntary. farmer, may' of course, refuse to but the comply, price of refusal the such loss of is benefits. The amount offered intended to be is to exert pressure on him to sufficient
71 agree regulation.19 to the The to proposed power confer or is the to or withhold unlimited benefits coerce power If to the destroy. grower the cotton elects not accept re will receive less for those benefits, crops; his who he. to him. result payments ceive will be able The undersell ruin. The in may be financial well coercive purpose and tent of not by the statute is obscured the fact that has it not been It perfectly that, successful. is out be pointed cause there still remained a minority the whom rental payments and benefit were insufficient to induce to sur their action,. render of independence Congress has the gone further in the Bankhead Cotton the and, Act, used in a taxing directly more fashion power minatory to com pel progression fully submission. more only This serves to the the expose purpose coercive of tax imposed so-called by the It is that of present' act. clear the Department Agriculture has described the to properly plan as one in non-cooperating a line. This is keep minority coercion by of is pressure. power economic The asserted choice n illusory. Comm’n, Frost v. Trucking
In Railroad U. S. Co. act which 583, super- a state was for provided considered of regulation transportation by and for hire vision automo- highways. of public bile on the Certificates convenience necessity persons desiring were to by be obtained for purpose. regulatory use the this The highways to “ Dept. Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment, p. of U. Ex S. 9. cooperative groups associations and other perience of shown has support, such the that without Government efforts the farmers together product to control the amount of their to band to sent nearly always brought nothing. always, market are to Almost under circumstances, has been noneooperating such there minority, which, a go along refusing rest, stayed to with the- has the on outside and majority tried from sacrifices the to benefit has made. ... It noncooperating minority is keep line, to this in at. prevent or least doing majority, it from harm power to the that the Govern adjustment has ment been marshaled behind programs.” *58 that a carrier should private contract required commission its operation. a certificate as a condition of secure such of action was to transmute the The effect the commission’s the public words, a carrier. In other private carrier into a for highways of the as using private- carrier privilege upon dedicating conditioned his his was compensation of public transportation. quasi-public to the use property to holding private that the carrier was not obliged While condition, the submit himself to the commission denied if he do using of the did not highways him the privilege was, here, that the carrier argument as had a so. The holding the act said, This court in as con- free choice. strued unconstitutional: so, carefully so safe- guaranties,
“If constitutional assault, open by are to guarded against destruction direct a requiring process the less effective indirect but no in voluntary, fact in form lacks though, surrender, which, Having to regard the of compulsion. none of elements to private form here is an offer carrier alone, act the the grant deny, a may upon which the state or privilege, a condition, reject. is free to or In accept which carrier given choice, except no a be- reality, carrier is choice the rock and the to a whirlpool, option forego tween —an which his may be vital to livelihood or privilege submit may to which an intolerable bur- requirement a constitute 593.) (p. den.” plan purely if the were one for voluntary
But co-oper- far no power it would stand better so as federal ation is' it is a At best for purchasing scheme with concerned. regulation funds to federal of a submission subject federal to states. reserved Congress that has the said undoubted right
It is ap- to to executive money officers for expenditure propriate government between the contracts and under individuals; expenditures of the total is much so made. ap- that But expenditures under contracts for propriations proper *59 are which contracts justify cannot purposes governmental reduc- the for And power. not within federal .contracts outside are production the control of acreage tion of and ex- to be An appropriation power. that range of .the for calling contracts under United States by the pended the Consti- offend clearly law would of a state violation authorizes which objectionable less Is a statute tution. a field in action moneys to induce of federal expenditure intermeddle? no to power United States has the in which jurisdiction compel to state invade Congress The cannot action. more can it such purchase, no action; individual of federal types appropri to numerous referred areWe in made the and it is asserted past, have been ation which their validity. to need raised as We has been question no in them. As was or consider said examine to not stop Mellon, 487): (p. supra v. Massachusetts Congress of will of the acts examination an “. . . as in- appropriating or of statutes number disclose, large a moneys of for non-federal pur- expenditure volving into effect.” and carried enacted have been poses out, expenditures such not have points opinion theAs open was for remedy testing no challenged because been in the courts. constitutionality their’ awith conditional appropri- not here concerned We are a that if nor certain provision with con- money, ation of with the complied appropriation not shall no are ditions By Agricultural Adjustment Act available. longer be to appropriated of the is expended tax be only the amount whereby under contracts the parties in bind payment regulation by the to Federal themselves Government. obvious difference a is an between There statute stating which upon moneys shall expended be conditions and only upon assumption effective of one a contractual obli- a regulation submit to to which gation otherwise could Many examples not enforced. pointing be the distinction are to might appropriations be cited. We referred in aid of it education, is that no said one has doubted the Congress power stipulate to the sort of education for money shall be expended. which But an appropriation to an educational institution its by which terms is to become only available if the beneficiary enters into a contract to teach doctrines subversive of the clearly Constitution is An bad. affirmance of the authority Congress to so condition the expenditure of an appropriation tend would to nullify all constitutional upon legislative limitations power.
But that is it is said there a wide difference in another respect, compulsory regulation between of the local affairs *60 of citizens the mere a state’s and making of a'contract relating that, to if any their conduct; state it objects, may declare the contract and thus prevent void those under the jurisdiction from state’s complying with its terms. The argument is plainly fallacious. The United States can the only make contract if the federal power to tax and to subject reaches the appropriate matter of the contract. If this subject does reach the matter, its exertion cannot be by say action. To is displaced state otherwise to deny the the supremacy of the laws of to United States; make them to subordinate those of a State. This would reverse the cardinal in principle embodied Constitution the and sub- may stitute one which declares that Congress only effec- to tively as matters within federal legislate competence the do not dissent. when States to
Congress power has no its enforce on commands the sought by Agricultural the to the ends Adjustment farmer that it not may indirectly It follow accomplish Act. must by taxing spending purchase ends and to those compli- and plan The Constitution the entire of gov- our ance. of any power such use the to tax negative and to ernment act undertakes to authorize. It as does not spend the that local conditions throughout declare the to na- help situation of national concern; created a for have this tion but- to is say that whenever there is a similar- widespread ity of conditions, local Congress may ignore constitu- tional limitations upon its powers usurp own and those reserved to If, the states. in lieu of regula- compulsory tion of subjects within states’ jurisdiction, the reserved which is the prohibited, Congress taxing could invoke the and spending power as a means to the same accomplish end, clause 8§of of Article I would become the instrument for total subversion of governmental the powers to reserved the individual states.
If the act before a us is the federal proper exercise of taxing power, evidently regulation all industry the of throughout may accomplished by United States be similar of be the same It would power. possible exercises to exact from of it money industry pay one branch an to another in field of which every activity branch lies within the of threat of province the states. The mere a procedure might such well induce the surrender compliance regulation and the with federal as the rights in of continuance business. A instances will price few thought. illustrate the Congress
Let us should determine that suppose miner or some raw. mate- farmer, producer other too much his receiving is for with products, rials conse- of the and idleness quent depression processing industry *61 Though, by employes. confession, its there is no of Congress compel by to a in statute lowering vested power material, raw the same result prices might the the be of of valid, act questioned by if the taxing accomplished, be his output appropriating and the upon pro- the producer with or either without processors, to the conditions ceeds payment for of subsidy. consideration the as the imposed Poultry Corp. in Schechter v. held United We have Congress has 495, that no States, power to regu 295 U. S. a labor local of in business. hours If and wages the late' may very this end be accomplished right, is by petitioner the to to from money paid employers be appropriating to treasury agree whereby they under contracts federal byor federal certain fixed law by with standards comply contract. are not Congress sugar that refiners
Should ascertain to the .a fair that this detrimental receiving profit, and is industry, turn its in repercussions and in has trade entire analogy pres- in to the generally, might, and commerce it every cents a on law, impose pound ent an excise of two commodity and funds collected to such pass sale the the of only, agree as will to a certain refiners, and such maintain price. many are. being that too shoes manufactured
Assume saturated, the that the market the nation; is throughout half-time, running the factories em- price depressed, the in suffering. Upon principle the of the ployes statute n question Congress might authorize the of Com- Secretary enter into contracts with to shoe -manufacturers merce shall reduce his the output that each and that providing him a fixed sum pay proportioned States will to' United reduction, money to make the payments such the to be ,all tax retail shoe or their a on dealers by raised customers. many are there too in garment that workers Suppose -that this results in cities; of the large the dislocation Upon the principle balance. for contended an economic on the manufacture of might be laid garments all excise proceeds paid the to those manufactured manufac- their agree plants to remove to cities having who turers hundred population. Thus, than a not more thousand power taxation, of the the gov- asserted federal through will individual states, the ernment, against might com- industrial population. the redistribute pletely sustaining result claimed A federal power possible every business that which group thought be itself would tax might demand that be a laid on under-privileged its to be proceeds appropriated vendees, or to vendors income. deficiency of its redress of *62 suggest illustrations not to given, These that any are to unworthy, of are but purposes the mentioned demon- Govern-, strate the of the for which the scope principle the ment to test' its contends; principle-by applications; that, the by to out the of asserted point exercise power; in under Congress would, effect, pretext the of exercising in taxing reality accomplish the power, prohibited ends. It cannot that they improbable be envisage legisla- said are tion. The no supposed improbable cases more than years the been a few present would act have deemed ago. no of recently suggestion any
Until the existence of such in power Federal Government has the- been advanced. of framers of expressions Constitution, The the the the interpreting of court that instrument, decisions this and writings the will great of commentators be in searched in any vain for that there exists the clause suggestion un- der in elsewhere the Constitution, discussion or authority whereby every fair provision every impli- subverted, may cation from that instrument be the inde- obliterated, the individual pendence states and the into a central government United States converted exer- uncontrolled in cising police power every state of the or Union, regulation all local control superseding of the affairs or concerns of the states. himself, leading
Hamilton advocate of broad inter- power of the to tax and to pretation appropriate for the suggested any never that general welfare, power granted could be Constitution used for the by the destruction of in self-government the states. Story local countenances It doctrine. seems never to no such have occurred to agreed who have to those with them, them, or that the gen- (which eral United States, aptly welfare has been “ indestructible Union, composed an termed of indestruc- might be States,”) by served obliterating tible the con- of the members Union. But to stituent this fatal conclu- *63 sion the doctrine contended for inevitably would lead. And that, its sole- premise is though the makers of the in Constitution, the erecting federal government, intended define, sedulously limit to powers, and its so as to reserve to the states and the people sovereign power, be to wielded their, by the states" and citizens not by and to be invaded the States, they United by single nevertheless a clause gave power to to Congress barriers, the tear down the to invade'the jurisdiction, states’ a parliament and to.become of the whole to people, subject no restrictions save such as argument are The when in its true self-imposed. seen in the of its inevitable must be light character and results rejected.
Since, in as there no out, we have was pointed power it Congress impose exaction, the to the contested could lawfully-ratify or an officer not confirm what executive Act of 1935 regard. Consequently in the had done that of rights parties. the the does not affect is judgment The
Affirmed. Stone, dissenting. Me. Justice reversed. judgment the should I think be held ex- widely strongly and stress of present The of the of the wisdom opinion of differences pressed the it in Act makes Adjustment important, Agricultural emphasize to thinking result, and of clear interest sound have should con- propositions certain outset at the which of the validity Act. determining in the influence trolling are: They a unconsti- to- declare statute of courts power The
1. of to decision guiding -principles two subject tutional is from judicial conscious- never absent ought to be which only with the are concerned One is that ness. courts The statutes,' not with their wisdom. enact to' power of power exercise unconstitutional that while other is
-79 legislative branches by govern- executive and of the the ment to subject judicial is only check restraint, upon our own exercise of is own power our sense of self-re- For straint. the removal of from unwise laws the stat- ute appeal books lies not to the courts to the but ballot processes to the of government. democratic
2. The constitutional power levy to an Congress excise tax upon agricultural processing products is not present invalid, The questioned. levy is held not for any lay want of in power Congress to such a tax to defray expenditures, for public including gen- those *64 eral the welfare, but because use to its proceeds which are put is disapproved.
3. theAs present depressed agriculture of na- state is tion in extent and effects, wide its there is no basis for- that saying expenditure the of in public money of aid fanners is not within the granted specifically of power to Congress levy “provide to taxes for the . . general . of opinion
welfare.” The the Court does not declare otherwise. of question
4.
a variable
No
.tax fixed from timé to time
by fiat
the Secretary Agriculture,
of
of
or of unauthorized
legislative
of
delegation
power, is
presented.
now
The
imposed
of rates
by
schedule
the
in
Secretary
accordance
original
with the
command of Congress has since been
specifically
confirmed
adopted
by
and
Act of Congress,
has
which
declared that
it- shall bé the lawful tax. Act
of August
1-935,49 Stat. 750.
is
24,
That
the tax which
government
the
now
to
Any
seeks
collect.
defects there
may
in
have been
the manner of laying the tax
the-
by
Secretary
now
by
have
been
the
removed
exercise of the
to
power Congress
pass
of
a curative statute validating an
defective, tax.
intended, though
United States v. Heinssen
Co.,
370;
Goodcell,
&
206 U. S.
Graham
& Foster v.
States,
282
Milliken v.
409;
U. S.
cf.
United
It is these with the our-attention to in that we should direct matters mind made to turn. of the Court is on the decision pivot which taxing within the levy unquestionably power a It is that step it is a may treated as invalid because Congress be of thus and is regulate agricultural a to plan production in not levy The is infringement power. of a forbidden state in- taxing of because it is power the less an exercise any defray expenditure general the welfare to an for tended government. Nor support than for some other rather effecting the tax to as levy the and collection of pointed is inevitably all federal have regulation. While taxes the it on internal of the economy states,' influence some tax upon that of a levy processing not contended is agricultural material' using products as raw manufacturers regulatory upon effect either their any perceptible has The is unlike pen- or manufacture. tax production held in the Tax alties which were invalid Child Labor Case, Wallace, 259 U. S. in Hill U. in 20, 44, v. S. States, 5, 268 U. in 17, Linder v. United S. United v. 296 U. S. Constantine, 287, States because were they the instruments of regulation by- themselves virtue *65 the coercive effect on left control the their matters of .to if regulation, any be, Here there accomplished states. is by by by the tax but the method which proceeds not its equally would be expended, by any and accomplished are like, funds, regardless of their public use of source. may simply method be stated.
The Out of the avail- to fund are made such farmers payments as are able will- productive acreage, curtail their who in to ing fact do so have filed their in advance written undertaking and who Secretary Agriculture. the of In so with to do that saying spending public moneys of is this method an invasion of states, of the powers the reserved the Court not does assert gen- public promote that the of to the expenditure funds eral dele- welfare is no£ a substantive power specifically gated Story to national as Hamilton government, the pronounced it to be. It does not that deny expendi- the ture funds for the benefit of and in of a of farmers aid of program production agricultural of curtailment of prod- and thus of a better ucts, supposedly ordered national within the But economy, specifically granted is power. it power by is declared that state is nevertheless infringed the of the of tax to expenditure proceeds compensate the their, the of acreage. farmers for curtailment cotton farmer no Although legal the is under placed compulsion to reduce it is that the offer acreage, compen- said mere of sation for of doing species so is a economic coercion which operates with the same force and the legal effect as though mandatory curtailment were made Act by Congress. of In it is that any though event insisted even not coercive the of funds to expenditure public induce the to recipients curtail is itself an of production infringement state power, government since federal the invade cannot the domain “ ” by purchase of the of states performance of acts which no to power compel. has it payments
Of the assertion that the to farmers coer- are that no enough say is to such it contention cive, pressed is such by and no taxpayer, consequences were to be or to have from appear resulted anticipated the adminis- suggestion Act. The tration of the of coercion finds no in record or data any in the support showing the actual Act. Threat loss, of the of not operation hope of gain, is of the essence economic coercion. of long Members a industry have been depressed undoubtedly to tempted acreage by the hope resulting curtail better prices and by proffered opportunity to obtain ready .needed nothing, money. But there is to indicate that who those impelled were by fear lower accepted benefits if prices or that at in they accept, any did stage not the operation *66 82
of the plan say whether, a farmer could from the apart certainty of cash at payments specified times, the advan- would tage with curtailment production lie of com- plus pensation, rather than with the or same increased acreage the plus expected prices rise in which actually occurred. Although Agricultural Adjustment the Act was into put in June, the' official operation 1933, of De- reports the of partment Agriculture 6,343,000 that show acres of pro- of land, ductive cotton the did total, not participate 14% plan 1934, 2,790,000 in the in acres,' total, of the 6% not in 1935. participate did Of the total number of farms 1,500,000, estimated at growing cotton, in 1934 and 33% in 1935 did not participate. 13% in congressional It is that significant hearings the on Act, 598, the bill that became the 48 Bankhead Stat. as 20, 1934, Act of June by 1184, amended Stat. which of on all cotton produced a tax in of imposes excess 50% by Secretary the of limits there prescribed Agriculture, testimony that the restriction of cotton was abundant the by Agricultural Adjustment attempted production not be provisions Act could secured without coercive Hearing before Bankhead Act. See Committee on of Senate, on 1974, Cong., S. 73rd U. S. 2nd Agriculture, Agriculture, on Committee U. Hearing before S. Sess.; 8402, on R. 73rd Cong., H. 2nd Representatives, of House g0 (Committees and House reported, The Senate Sess. 2nd Cong., Sess., 73rd 283, p. 3; No. House Report Senate Sess., 2nd 3. Thé Cong., p. 73rd- 867, Report No. Report on Agriculture the administration Department of the Adjustment (February Act 15, Agricultural of the 50, out points that 1934), p. the Bank- 31, December to strong in to a response sentiment passed was Act head in. “ control that would mandatory production pre- favor increasing from farmers own their noncooperating vent upon price capitalize to advances in order plantings by from the reductions made contract resulted had that
83 signers.”1 The presumption of of a constitutionality is statute not be by overturned ah to of its assertion co- ercive effect which nothing rests on more substantial than groundless speculation.
(cid:127)It is the upon contention that power infringed state is by regulation purchased of agricultural production that chief reliance It is is placed. that, insisted while the Con- gives Congress, stitution to in specific unambiguous to power spend, the tax and terms, power subject the is to which do not find origin limitations their in any express of the provision Constitution and which other ex- tq subject. are powers not delegated pressly Constitution that requires public The funds shall be promotion a the spent purpose, for defined of the gen- Their expenditure usually eral pay- welfare. involves which use by ment on terms will the insure selected re- of the within the limits constitutional cipients purpose. of their fail Expenditures purpose would and thus lose n .if the terms their sanction of constitutional payment their by such that influence on the were not action of would the end recipients permitted the be attained. The Congress inseparable to is from spend of power persua- over Congress action which no legislative sion has to not that the Congress may command control. science of in taught state universities. be if agriculture But it the of that teaching by grants science would aid to state if not it is institutions, appropriate, necessary, that the condition, incorporated in on the grant be the Morrill 503, 417, 26 that 12 Stab Stab it be for used Act, the Similarly it would purpose. intended seem to be com- not Constitution, the violation of it, with for pliance the and the university to-give government to take a con- would be so used. It grant that the makes no tract dif- sole purpose was the or the dominant coercion of Whether the designed the act was Act, or whether also for Bankhead revenue or ends, is no occasion legitimate there to consider other now. the do an act which to is a promise there
ference that Condition and prom- induce. to is calculated condition of the in furtherance are both alike valid since ise are appropriated. is money for which purpose national in- but action, which are individual' upon These effects government expenditure authorized cidents limitation a themselves to be (cid:127)money, pronounced are prin- and so the time-honored granted power, upon granted that interpretation of constitutional ciple thp re- is are incident to it which all those includes power *68 the Chief legitimate,” great the end be said “Let versed. Constitution, of the the Justice, scope “let it be within are appropriate, plainly are which means which and all are not but con- prohibited, that which end, to adapted of are Constitution, letter and spirit the sist with the 4 Maryland, 316, McCulloch v. Wheat. constitutional.” to guide exposition This cardinal 421. constitutional far as the of re-phrased now so spending power be must is concerned. Let the goyernment expendi- federal the welfare, general the if is still, ture be to it need- promote insure its use for in to ful order the intended to purpose action which any Congress influence cannot command sphere the of state government, within the ex- because is unconstitutional. And taxes otherwise law- penditure are likewise unconstitutional levied if fully they are ap- expenditure to the whose incident is con- propriated demned. through the Interstate
Congress, Commerce Commission intrastate railroad aside rates. set It has and has made intrastate industries by or destroyed. raising lowering results are These said to be permissible tariffs. because of the incidents commerce power are and the they power imports. Cases, on See levy Minnesota to duties Rate 230 Case, 234 Shreveport U. 352; 342; S. Board Trus U. S. of Illinois University States, the v. United tees of of only conclusion to 48. The be drawn is re- U. S. that suits they become lawful when are of incidents those powers unlawful when but incident to .the similarly granted power to tax and spend. a
Such limitation contradictory is and destructive of the power appropriate to for the public welfare, is in- of capable practical application. The spending power Congress is in legislative addition to the power and not subordinate to This it. independent grant of the power of the purse, and its very in nature, involving exercise its duty to insure expenditure the granted power, within presuppose freedom of selection among divers ends and aims, and the to capacity impose such conditions as will render the choice effective. It is a in contradiction terms say to is that there power spend to for the national wel- fare, rejecting any while power to impose conditions rea- sonably adapted to attainment end which alone justify would the expenditure!
The limitation now sanctioned must lead to absurd consequences. The government may to give seeds farm- ers, but condition may the gift being not upon their in planted they where are places most needed or even planted government at The give all. may money to the *69 unemployed, may but not ask that those-who it get shall give in or return, labor even use it to support fam- their It may give money ilies. to sufferers from earthquake, or fire, pestilence flood, may but tornado, not con- impose designed precautions ditions —health to prevent the of or induce the of spread disease, movement population sanitary or more areas. AÜ safer that, to because is it regulation infringing state purchased powers, must be who are or states, for the unable unwilling left to supply government The necessary relief. may the spend its rehabilitation, 389, 48 for vocational Stat. money but it , consent of concerned, the all may not, supervise with the to It may undertakes aid. spend which it its process of the boll’ suppression weevil, may but for the money 86 growth farmers for the of suspending
not the compensate may aid state reforesta- cotton in infected areas. It the 653, 43 Stat. but agencies, tion and forest fire prevention their conduct. It may supervise may to permitted not be Stat. 48 Stat. schools, 929, 1151, rural Stat. support 792, grant by requirement but not condition its the may It may appropri- that certain standards be maintained. Fi- moneys by ate to be the Reconstruction expended “ in agriculture, nance to com- Corporation financing aid “ merce to facilitate the exportation and industry,” and Do agricultural of all its activities products.” and other in to the collapse because, permissible pur- order effect in the is out terms myriad ways money paid upon pose, which action of recipients and conditions influence the Congress command? The states, within the which cannot If a na- expenditure answer would seem the is for plain. will that not thwarted purpose, purpose tional public be is on condition which will advance that because payment Congress by The which induces pay- action purpose. money general welfare, to the but which' promote ments of coerce, or is but an incident it not command -to a does but a granted power, permissible means to specifically a If in aid of a appropriation program end. of legitimate agricultural production is constitutional, of curtailment is, payment it to on not denied that farmers coii- and it is is they acreage their crop reduce constitutional. dition that less so because the farmer at his any is own It not the to fulfill -the condition. option promises of power purse great the is a governmental the one That Every for first time announced. not now student is of aware history government and economics is of of the in every gov- and of its existence civilized its magnitude by Both were well framers ernment. understood they sanctioned the grant 'when the Constitution to the.federal-government, both power were spending *70 views, Hamilton and by whose of' recognized Story, the
87 power spending as standing on a parity with the other powers specifically granted, have hitherto been generally accepted.
The suggestion that it must now
by judicial
be curtailed
fiat
may
because
be
by
it
abused
use hardly
unwise
rises.
to
argument.
the
of
dignity
may
So-
judicial power be
power
abused. “The
to tax is the
to
power
destroy,” but
we
not,
do
for that
doubt its
reason,
existence, or hold that
efficacy
its
is to be restricted by
incidental or
its
collateral
effects
the states.
v.
upon
Fenno,
See Veazie Bank
8 Wall.
533; McCray
States,
v. United
U.
27; compare
S.
Magnano
Hamilton,
Co. v.
One restriction the is that must purpose truly be national. may Another is that it not be used to coerce action left is to Another the state control. conscience and patriotism of the “It Congress and Executive. must be remembered are the legislators guardians that ultimate of the liberties of in people and welfare the as a quite great degree as Holmes; in Missouri, the courts.” Justice Kansas & Texas U. Ry. 267, o. S. 270. May, C v.
A of the tortured construction Constitution is not be to justified by to examples recourse extreme of reckless con- gressional occur if spending might which courts could — expenditures which, not if prevent they even could be thought any national to effect would purpose, possible be legislature of a lost only by action to all sense of public are responsibility. suppositions Such addressed to the to accustomed believe that it mind is the business in on judgment courts to sit the of ^legislative wisdom not only action. are the agency Courts government be that must assumed to have to capacity govern. Con- gress and courts may the both falter unhappily or be mistaken in the their performance.of constitutional duty.
But great of our charter of interpretation government any which on that proceeds, assumption responsibility for of our preservation institutions is exclusive *71 of government, branches of three any of one
concern is far them from destruction or it save that alone can the constituent run, “to obliterate long in the more likely, indestructible union of “an indestructible members” of ” even language, that recognition the frank states than it that the constitution, may says: power mean what of a to relieve a nation- to tax includes spend power gifts of maladjustment by conditional wide economic money. join Caedozo and Me. Justice
Me. Justice Brandéis opinion. in this & CAR HEATING v. SAFETY
UNITED STATES LIGHTING CO.* January 6, Argued 20, 1935.—Decided 75. December 1936. No. * 76, Rogers, Revenue, Collector Internal Together with No. v. Heating Lighting Co. Certiorari to Safety the Circuit Court & Car Third Circuit. for Appeals