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 | Adams, Samuel, 14, 15, 22; and Bill Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 57, 63, State Courts to hold Acts of Con- Bayard v. Singleton, 45. Berrien, John M., opposes power of 136, 183, 216, 240, 270, 299. Amendments to Constitution, 16, 33, American Steel Foundries Case, 226, 227. 214. Attainder, Bills of, 81, 151-152. BACON, JOHN, and judicial review, 126. Booth Case, 198, 199, 266. Boudinot, Elias, as to judicial review, | Brandeis, Louis D., 236, 243. Bryan, George, as to judicial review, Burke, Edmund, 7. CALHOUN, JOHN C., 24; as to Madison, Carriage Tax, debate on, 113; case to Barbour, Philip P., proposes in 1829 Chase, Chief Justice Salmon P., 266. Chase, Judge Samuel, 260. |