[Footnote 1: See "Congressional Record" of December 18, 1918.]
There the matter stands at this writing. A District Court judge has declared the new act unconstitutional 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.]