Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

to enjoin enforcement of the Act, or compliance with it, by officials of the Board. The District Court dismissed the suit for want of equity. This decree was reversed, with directions to grant the relief asked. The tax was held invalid on the reasoning of the first Child Labor Case. It was held not to be sustainable as an exercise of the commerce power of Congress, not being limited to or leading to obstructions of interstate commerce. Justice Brandeis concurred in holding the Act unconstitutional.

Congress, by Act of Sept. 21, 1922, c. 369; 42 Stat. 998, enacted legislation on the same subject which was held constitutional by the Court in Board of Trade v. Olsen (1923), 262 U. S. 1.

50. Lipke v. Lederer (1922, June 5), 259 U. S. 557. Act Oct. 2, 1919, c. 80, sec. 2; 41 Stat. 277, 298. Act Oct. 28, 1919, c. 8, sec. 35; 41 Stat. 305, 317.

The section provided in part "upon evidence of such illegal manufacture or sale a tax shall be assessed against, and collected from the person in double the amount now provided by law, with an additional penalty of $500 on retail dealers." Acting under this sanction, the collector of Philadelphia assessed a tax against Lipke and threatened distraint. Lipke sought an injunction, but his bill was dismissed. This decree was reversed in the Supreme Court on the ground that the "tax” laid by section 35 was in fact a penalty, imposed without provision for a hearing as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Justices Brandeis and Pitney dissented without expressing an opinion on the constitutionality of the section.

51. Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923, April 9), 261 U.S. 525.

Act September 19, 1918, c. 174; 40 Stat. 960.

The District of Columbia minimum wage law

established a wage board with authority, under regulations to fix standards of minimum wages in any occupation for women, adequate to supply the necessary cost of living to such workers, to maintain them in good health, and to protect their morals and also to determine minimum wages for minors and what wages are unreasonably low. The cases involved only the minimum wage for women. One was brought by an employer, the other by an employee, to enjoin enforcement of the Act. Injunctions issued by the lower Court were confirmed, the Act being held unconstitutional at an interference with the right of freedom of contract guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Chief Justice Taft and Justices Sanford and Holmes dissented; Justice Brandeis took no part in the decision.

52. Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (1923, April 9), 261 U. S. 428.

Act March 4, 1913, c. 150, sec. 8, par. 64; 37 Stat. 938, 974.

An Act of Congress affecting the District of Columbia vested in the District Supreme Court, power to revise proceedings of the District Public Utilities Commission, with a right to parties to appeal to the Court of Appeals and thence to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was held that this portion of the Act was invalid, as such legislative or administrative jurisdiction could not be conferred by Congress on the Supreme Court of the United States either directly or by appeal.

53. Washington v. Dawson & Co. (1924, Feb. 25), 264 U. S. 219.

Act June 10, 1922, c. 216; 42 Stat. 634.

It was held that Congress has no power to permit application of the Workmen's Compensation laws

of the several States to injuries within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Note. In some lists of cases holding Acts of Congress unconstitutional which have appeared in various publications, the case of Yale v. Todd, 13 How. 51, note (Act of March 23, 1792, 1 Stat. 243), is included, on the authority of the note in United States v. Ferreira (1851), 13 How. 40, 51, 53; but such inclusion is a mistake, since the Court did not hold the statute invalid, but construed it as inapplicable; see The Supreme Court in the United States History (1922), I, by Charles Warren; The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (1914), by Charles G. Haines, p. 159. In some lists, the case of United States v. Ferreira (1851), 13 How. 40, itself is included; but this also is a mistake, for the Court did not hold the Act of Congress therein concerned invalid, but only held that the Judge of the District Court had wrongly construed the Act.

A Joint Resolution of August 4, 1894 (28 Stat. 1018), was held unconstitutional in Jones v. Meehan (1899, Oct. 30), 175 U. S. 1.

For the synopses of the decisions given above, I am considerably indebted to an excellent compilation entitled "Unconstitutional Acts", prepared by Representative Charles W. Ramseyer of Iowa and appearing in the Congressional Record, Appendix, Feb. 11, 1925; see also The Supreme Court of the United States and Unconstitutional Legislation, an address by William Marshall Bullitt, May 6, 1924; and Judicial Review of Legislation (1923), by Robert von Moschzisker.

INDEX

ACTS OF CONGRESS, number of, held |
invalid, 134-136; number of, de-
cided by vote of five to four, 183-
184; bill to forbid inferior Federal
Courts to hold invalid, 188, 220;
affecting Labor, held invalid, 238-
240; affecting Labor, held valid,
240-241; involving due process, 244;
detailed list of, held invalid, 273–301.
Adair Case, 136, 216, 239, 290.
Adams, John, 7, 14, 15, 18; fears
aristocracy, 72.

Adams, Samuel, 14, 15, 22; and Bill
of Rights, 82, 91.
Adamson Law, 160.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 57, 63,

State Courts to hold Acts of Con-
gress invalid, 138; as to Presidential
instructions, 260.

Bayard v. Singleton, 45.
Bedford, Gunning, Jr., opposes judicial
review, 52.

Berrien, John M., opposes power of
Congress over States, 157-158.
Bill of Rights, and George Mason, 6;
and Franklin, 6; and John Adams,
7; of the States, 36-37; need for,
in Federal Constitution, 79-83; why
essential, 86-90; enforcement of,
rendered of no avail by La Follette's
proposed Amendment, 142-153; vio-
lations of, by Congress, 150-152.
Blackstone, Sir William, 25.

136, 183, 216, 240, 270, 299.
Advisory Opinions, Court refuses to Bland, Richard, 14.
give, 259.

Amendments to Constitution, 16, 33,
34, 83-85, 93-94; views of U. Tracy
as to, 128; La Follette's proposed,
138-140; arguments against La
Follette's, 141–177.

American Steel Foundries Case, 226, 227.
Appellate Jurisdiction, what is, 213-

214.

Attainder, Bills of, 81, 151-152.

BACON, JOHN, and judicial review, 126.
Baldwin, Abraham, and judicial re-
view, 52, 97, 103, 115, 123.
Baldwin, Judge Henry, 263, 268.
Bank of the United States, debate on
charter of, 105-110; attacks on, 194,
198, 268.

Booth Case, 198, 199, 266.
Borah, William E., proposal to require
concurrence of seven out of nine
Judges, 179-217. •

Boudinot, Elias, as to judicial review,
106.

| Brandeis, Louis D., 236, 243.
Breckenridge, John, opposes judicial
review, 125, 126.

Bryan, George, as to judicial review,
65.

Burke, Edmund, 7.

CALHOUN, JOHN C., 24; as to Madison,
93.

Carriage Tax, debate on, 113; case to
test validity of, 114-115.
Charles River Bridge Case, 268.

Barbour, Philip P., proposes in 1829 Chase, Chief Justice Salmon P., 266.
concurrence of Judges, 219.
Bayard, James A., as to powers of
Congress, 42, 156; as to 25th Sec-
tion of Judiciary Act, 104; as to
judicial review, 118; as to power of

Chase, Judge Samuel, 260.
Checks, on Power. See RESTRICTIONS.
Child Labor Law Cases, 136, 183, 215,
239, 244, 293, 298.
Choate v. Trapp, 60, 292.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »