*1 STATES, OREGON. TRUSTEE, UNITED May 29, April 25, Argued 1961. Decided No. 329. for the United E. Morris the cause Herbert argued former Solicitor him on the briefs were States. With Cox, Attor- Assistant Rankin, General General Solicitor Attorney General Orrick, Acting Assistant ney General L. Rose. Leonard, and David Alan Rosenthal S. Zorn, Oregon, Attorney General Catherine Assistant her the brief on respondent. With argued the cause Thornton, Attorney Y. Robert General. the Court. opinion of delivered the Mr. Justice Black in a resident, died Oregon Warpouske, Adam with- Oregon Hospital Administration States Veterans’ composed leaving net estate heirs, legal out a will or pro- law Oregon $13,000. worth about personal property vides that such shall escheat A State.1 on statute, hand, provides the other *2 when veteran legal a dies without a or in a will heirs veter ans’ his personal property immediately “shall hospital, vest in and become of the United States as trustee for the sole use benefit of the General Post Fund . ...” In reliance these provisions their respective statutes, Oregon both the State of and the Gov ernment of Warpouske’s the United filed claims for States Oregon probate having estate jurisdiction court the matter. that if
Recognizing the federal statute, applicable make claim valid, would of the para- mount, State attacked the Government’s reliance upon that statute two grounds: urged on it that first, not apply theory federal statute did to this case on the provisions depended its upon the hav- Government’s ing made a valid contract with prior the veteran to his death and that Warpouske had no made such contract he mentally because had been incompetent to do so when he hospital entered the all at times up thereafter his death; and, secondly, urged that the statute, even if applicable, pertains invalid because it to the devolution of a property, matter contended to have been
wholly reserved States the Tenth Amendment.
After hearings, probate court found as a fact that Warpouske had been unable enter a into valid contract with the Government because of his mental Stat., provides: Ore. Rev. 120.010, “Immediately upon § the death any person heirs, real, who dies intestate without leaving personal or property, mixed state, interest or estate the same escheats to state, subject only and vests in the to the claims of the provided creditors and 120.130; as in ORS 120.060 to and the clear proceeds paid derived therefrom part shall be into and become a the Common School Fund of this state and be loaned invested by the Board, provided by State Land as law.” (1952 ed.) S. C. State’s accepted the That then court incompetence. requiring valid statute of the federal interpretation and concluded application to its as a prerequisite contract case, have in this not, could such that since Warpouske’s prop- State was entitled made, the been appeal, On State of its escheat law. erty by virtue grounds.3 Because affirmed on the same Supreme Court statutory question of federal of this importance this deci- conflict between alleged and an construction other state courts made previously sion and decisions granted we certiorari.5 final jurisdiction,4 of the two state courts accept findings we Since into a con- and did not enter could not Warpouske cru- States, the to the to leave his tract *3 in can prevail is whether the Government question cial on that it can a hold such contract. We the absence of not relied does that the federal statute grounds the violate does not contract and that this statute a require Tenth Amendment. the in 1941 as controlling provision passed
The
was
Act of 1910.6
Sundry Appropriations
the
amendment
unequivocally provided
and
quite plainly
Act
The 1910
home
to a veterans’
applicant
admission of an
the
contract
binding
a
and constitute
valid
should “be
Managers of
and the
of
applicant
Board
between such
while a
said applicant
that on the death of
said home
at
nor next
home, leaving no heirs
law
of such
member
at
by
applicant
said
personal property
of
all
owned
kin,
in action
including money or choses
time of his death,
. .
in
by
him
of will .
shall vest
disposed
held
and not
3
40,
222
for the use and benefit fund of said sole .” provi- home . . . The contractual nature of these was and, indeed, expressly sions of the 1910 Act clear we question validity recognized that fact when the of the Act was before this Court.7 brought Act greatly amplified, however, by
The 1910 was adopted provision amendments 19418 and the central of the Act, quoted above, significantly changed. 1 of the Act Section new restates this provision with out “contract,” simply reference to the word providing that when a veteran dies a patient “while member or any facility, hospital or any while being furnished care all treatment,” personal disposed property “not will or otherwise, immediately shall vest in and become the United States as trustee use sole and benefit of the General Post Fund . ...” Act goes then supplement on to provision this basic with other provisions that are drawn in the language of contract. But provisions these must read in the context of 2 of Act provides which the death of veteran in a hospital veterans’ “shall give rise to a con clusive presumption aof valid contract.” Read context, the language contract which appears in these provisions other of the Act is at all inconsistent with the provision for automatic vesting without *4 1. Quite the contrary, § it plain seems to us that
7 passing “In June, the 1910, Congress merely Act of directed terms and conditions veterans, consistently under which with state law, can built, obtain to admittance Homes operated maintained and by government for the benefit aged, of veterans. Homes for the needy, infirm, or in return for the by them, generally benefits bestowed receive some benefit from or estates of their members.” Stevens, United States v. 623, 302 U. S. 627. 8 55 seq. (1952 ed.) Stat. 17 et 38 U. S. C. § 9 (1952 ed.) 38 U. S. C. § (1952 ed.) 38 U. S. C. 17a. § in Act included provisions were these “contractual” detracting from reinforcing rather than of purpose for the being thought apparently 1—the of provisions § Act be would chance that there was some it and that would conse- as unconstitutional attacked alternative bases to include quently be advisable upheld.11 it which could be it to makes give construction we
This natural sub- legislation dealing with this of pattern fit well long for veterans is The solicitude ject. and hospitals pensions, homes, standing.12 Veterans’ ever-increasing on an supplied have been other facilities here, as did the deceased veteran veterans, Many scale. long periods of for depend upon had to these benefits have have appears example, lives. Warpouske, their at various intervals years life, more ten spent than and hospitals in veterans’ homes time time, from only he country. were the homes throughout These is that congressional plan at here had those times. wills veterans without personal property whatever little homes happen kin leave when die veterans’ Fund, paid Post hospitals should be into General pleasure of other to be used for the recreation spend days and women who have to their ex-service men This idea ex- hospitals. veterans’ homes during the pressed Representative Jennings discussion the floor the House: “And would of the 1941 Act on money go let a fund better to into much the benefit veterans than to that would inure to of other arose, part least, These at from the fact that fears doubtless case, supra, in the Stevens had, Appeals declared the Circuit Court of under provisions the milder 1910 Act unconstitutional even States, Amendment, Stevens F. 2d the Tenth holding ultimately reversed Court. Legislation Pertaining History See Brief Veterans’ Benefits, 38 U. S. C. A. 1.
648 . . . go let into a fund under the escheat laws of [a] 13 State?” Having provisions concluded that 1 are unequivocal clear and on face, their we find no need legislative history to resort to the of the Act.14 Since the placed State heavy has such history, reliance however, appropriate we do deem it point out that this history is at best inconclusive. It as true, the State points out, that Representative Rankin, as Chairman of the Committee the bill handling on the floor of the House, expressed during view the course of discussion of the bill on the floor that the 1941 Act would not apply to insane incompetent veterans to make valid contracts.15 But such statements, even when stand have alone, never been regarded sufficiently as compelling justify deviation from the plain language of statute. They even are less so here is powerful for there countervailing evidence to the intention of those who drafted the bill. bill up was drawn and sent to Speaker House, very form which it was passed, Veterans’ Bureau itself.16 And that Bureau, we told, are has consistently interpreted the 1941 Act as making sanity insanity aof veteran who dies in a veterans’ hospital entirely irrelevant to the determination of the Government’s rights under Act. see no
We merit challenge to the constitutionality § as construed this natural manner. undoubtedly power has the its constitutional —under powers to raise armies and navies and to conduct wars— pay pensions, and hospitals to build homes veterans. plain We think it the same sources of 13 Cong. Rec. 5203-5204. 14Cf. Bowen, United States v. 508, 513-514; 100 U. S. National Wood, Home S.U. 15 Cong. Rec. 5203. Rep. See H. Cong., Sess., R. No. 77th pp. 1st 1-2. *6 personal require Congress power authorize in government when die left its wards property recreation to the comfort and shall be devoted facilities depend upon must people ex-service who of other pertains fact that this law care. The for Government does not render it invalid.17 devolution of to the normally left this is an area it is true that Although under the Amendment it is not immune Tenth States, are, Federal which by the Government passed from laws proper to necessary and here, as is the law exercise delegated power.18 aof Supreme Court Oregon is reversed judgment cause is remanded proceedings
and the further opinion. inconsistent with this
Reversed. Mr, with Douglas, whom Mr. Justice Justice Whit- concurs, dissenting. taker
I do not see constitu can how this decedent’s estate to the succession tionally pass States. The United state matter personal real and traditionally Grima, 490, 8 Mager system. v. under our How. continues, That tradition States 493-494. v. United Allen, U. Burnison, 87, 91-92; 331 339 U. S. S. Clark v. Day, 556, 562; Trust Irving Co. v. 517; 314 U. S. 503, Hoey, 188, 305 Lyeth v. An can U. S. individual 193. away making assets — enforced, promisee provided, will the contract —and 17 187, e, ante, p. g., also See, Kolovrat This was Oregon, v. 623, Stevens, holding States U. S. implicit in v. 85, supra. Lowrey, v. 305 U. which S. See Hines Cf. n. Federal rejected Constitution does that the contention Court not confer authority with mental deal incompetents. Bowles, 92; See, g., v. e. S. Atkinson Oklahoma U. Case v. Co., 508; Darby, U. S. 312 U. 100. S. United States v. Stevens,
is valid under state law. United States v.
quantum
may
S.
It
be that an action
meruit
against
person who,
would lie
the estate of a
Adam
though utterly incompetent
Warpouske
B.
con
cededly was,
hospital.1
received treatment at a federal
It
may be that the
all
appropriate
United States could
unex
pended funds from federal pensions or federal insurance
policies
exchange
for the services rendered an incom
Hall,
See United States v.
petent.
Wissner
343;
98 U. S.
Wissner,
cf. Miller Music Corp. v.
655;
338 U. S.
*7
Daniels, Inc.,
power
S. 373. The
Congress
to
legislate concerning the claims of all veterans, whether
well settled. Hines v.
competent or
is
incompetent,
Lowrey,
We deal however, with inheritance that incompetent veteran received from his brother —an estate worth about $13,000. provide How can for that pass sum to to the United States is difficult to under stand. Oregon provided has property how the of one who dies intestate and without heirs shall be distributed; and that is its right constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Never I has a believe, federal law before, governing dying one intestate been allowed to override a state law. Some state inheritance are by laws affected federal as policy, recently we held Kolovrat Oregon, ante, p. 187. treaty Thus where a Restitution, 1 See Law, Restatement (1937), Am. L. Inst. §114; (1951) 5 Corbin on Contracts §1109. provides: Ore. Rev. Stat. 120.010 “Immediately any the death person who dies intestate heirs, leaving any without real, personal property, or mixed interest state, or estate in this state, same escheats and vests in the subject only to the claims of provided the creditors and as in ORS 120.130; 120.060 to proceeds and the clear derived therefrom shall paid into part become of the Common School Fund of this state and be loaned or Board, provided invested the State Land by law.” provides with another nation made the United States reciprocal rights by inheritance the nationals of the provide a State cannot otherwise. If it countries, two could, revising foreign one State would indeed be In policy that the Federal makes. the con- Government text of the Amendment, rights Fourteenth of a State provide rules governing may inheritance also be com- pelled to bow to federal policy. § See R. S. U. S. C. 1982. Supremacy
Yet the Clause is not without For a limits. law to have supremacy it must be made “in pursuance” of the Court, Constitution. The of course, recognizes this; justifies and it this federal law governing devolution of under the Necessary Proper Clause of Art. I, § power to build hospitals and homes for veterans pay pensions
and to them plainly necessary proper powers to the to raise and support armies and navies and power conduct wars. The provide for the adminis- tration of the estates (which of veterans are not made up of federal owing veterans) funds cry is to me far from such power. But the Act present is of that *8 character.
This federal law governing estates of is veterans phrased in the language designed of contract. It is draw into the treasury all estates kind of the mentioned, whether be worth six cents or a million dollars. The federal claim is rendered, not for services as no effort is made to restrict the amount of the federal claim to benefits received. The Act plainly is a federal succession law.
The Act under which the purports to act is now in 38 S. C. In present §§ found 5220-5228. its form, came into the in 1941. law Act of Dec. 26, 1941, 55 Stat. 1 regulates disposition 868. Section the property veteran who dies in a while Veterans’ Hos-
pital and personal property disposed who leaves kin surviving will to which no next of spouse, heirs are entitled under the laws of his domicile. Such Act property, says, immediately the “shall vest in and become the property of the 1. The § United States.” acceptance of care or treatment at a Hospital Veterans’ acceptance the terms of the Act of the provisions of Act, and has “the effect of an assignment” of the property effective at death. 1. The fact § of death Hospital Veterans’ of a “leaving veteran no spouse, gives, next of or heirs” kin, presump- rise “to a conclusive tion” of a disposition valid contract for the prop- erty way Moreover, to the United States. § 2. the Veterans’ Administration is authorized to administer paying creditors’ if estate, claims, presented within designated times, granting them preference priorities prescribed by local law. that,
We know while the Act is based on “a conclusive presumption” that a assign the United States was made, there was fact no contract in this case. During period Warpouske’s hospitali- zation —from March 1, 1956, to March 19, 1956, the day of his death —he was either comatose or semicoma- tose.8 deal a presumption We with is contrary to Tot States, v. the fact (cf. 463). U. S. We have then a case involving power pro- vide for the administration of the estate of a deceased veteran where he has fact made no assignment of it to the Federal Government. To power what is that neces- sary and proper? Warpouske spent large Adam part of his life in Veterans’ Hos
pitals, especially during years (The from 1930 to 1945. record also shows that he received states.) care in the facilities of various But personal claim to administer solely *9 arises from “the fact of death” in Hospital. a Veterans’ con- expansive an against recently we warned Only Proper Clause. We Necessary of struction a caveat grant power, a but it is “not itself stated that necessary means Congress all the possesses Kinsella v. granted. carry specifically the powers out” “were given Singleton, S. 247. Powers Writings of James VI reserved,” as Madison said. Madi- given beyond powers (Hunt ed.) 390. And “no were son as were Constitution, and such those enumerated them.” Ibid. fairly incident to may or else make anyone Veterans a state law that estate, their absent beneficiary a Burnison, supra. it. precludes See States raising support- “fairly it incident” But if conducting wars for the navies and ing armies and the administration take over United States to I see no intestate, who die veterans personal their real estate why Congress cannot take over reason go can if the United States why, I no reason too. see any will go supersede it cannot today, far as allow it to we for provide comfort, and thus better veteran makes men and women ex-service recreation other care, and for care. And dependent are on the United States who collects vet- the Federal Government money the more greater receive. No the care will erans the better present where state law would collision with Oregon's will than here. an entire realty displaced took pro- as her law explicit is as for escheat providing law of deceased of the estates viding for administration and, between the United States If people. pre- conclusively can be utterly incompetent person intestate, dies it incompetent to exist when the sumed If conclusively it can be he leaves a will. can be where conclusively pre- veteran, of a can be case presumed employee, any case in case of sumed *10 any federal officeholder, pensioner. case of Of Congress expected course cannot be to use this vast new power England to the extreme. But we—unlike —live under a written limits powers, Constitution entrusting the Constitution to the conscience of the legislative body.
The Tenth Amendment does not, course, dilute power delegated government. to the national That is one face of truism through that runs our decisions. Darby, United States v. 100, 124; U. S. Oklahoma v. Co., Bowles, Atkinson 508, 534; U. S. Case v. S.U. 92, 101. But when the Federal Government enters a field as historically local as the administration of decedents’ estates, some clear relation of the power asserted to one of the delegated powers should be shown. At times the a delegated power exercise of deep prob reaches into local Filburn, lems. Wickard v. U. S. allowed power commerce extend home-grown to and home- used wheat, because total control was essential for effec tive control of the wheat market. But interstate there no semblance of likeness here. The need of the Govern ment to enter the administration of veterans’ up estates —made owing funds not from the United States —is no crucial phase of the ability of the United States to care for ex-service men and women or manage federal fiscal affairs.
Today’s square decision does not with conception our of federalism. There is nothing deeply more imbedded in the Tenth I Amendment, as read than history, the dis- position of the estates people. of deceased I do not see how scheme for administration of decedents’ estates of the kind we have here can possibly be necessary proper any power delegated Congress.
Raising money by borrowing taxing explic- are itly provided for Art. I, Raising money by appro- priating assets of those who have a relationship with the is not today) do people (as most Federal Government present At bottom powers. among the enumerated those to make is a desire out, points as the Court statute, opera- finance its Hospital help who use Veterans’ rendered; services can set rates for tions.4 of assets to assignments patients from can obtain *11 people to encourage it can induce States; But their wills. under beneficiaries hospitals make these States it is for the United possible I how do not see when the his consent a man’s without take The accepted sense. a creditor in the is not by can be done is in which that way only constitutional applied This law as by condemnation. taxation or Constitution; in the support levy a that has no indeed the Tenth Amendment. inroad on it makes a serious I all dissent. deference, With history legislative law, from the inspiration as seen for this Sess.; Rep. 77th Cong., No. (H. Rep. 1st S. R. No. 77th per Administration, a fact which Cong., Sess.), the Veterans’ 1st and tax following “Politicians haps observation: makes relevant doubt) rising (with phases of that payers occasional have assumed growing volume must reflect in the number of civil servants total imagined questioning belief, have Cynics, work to be done. idle or some of them multiplication must have left of officials is a matter in hours. But this for shorter all of them able to work that the equally misplaced. The fact is and doubt seem which faith not related quantity of the work are number of the officialsand governed employed is in the total of those The rise each other at all. whether volume the same and would be much Parkinson’s Law disappear. The diminish, increase, or even work were to it is a law of in the fact that Law lies importance of Parkinson’s growth analysis which factors growth based (1957), pp. 3-4. Parkinson, Law Parkinson’s is controlled.”