OLEOMAEGABHSTE. 627 



ago condemning the Grout bill and instructing the secretary to call 

 upon kindred and allied labor organizations to pass the same kind of 

 resolutions and send to Congress. A committee was sent out to inves- 

 tigate the matter; the fraud was shown them in a half dozen shops 

 within a stone's throw. The question was fully explained to them, 

 and they returned with the assurance that if they made any recommen- 

 dation it would be for the passage of the measure, as they had never 

 imagined such an appalling condition of affairs could exist as was 

 demonstrated to them when they were taken into stores where creamery 

 butter was asked for and packages brazenly taken from boxes which 

 the sellers were later forced to admit had concealed upon them the 

 revenue stamp showing them to contain oleomargarine. 



The committee which made the investigation was President Daley 

 and Director Carmody, the latter remarking after visiting the place of 

 the Ohio Butter Company, at 54 Fifth avenue, and seeing the frauds 

 practiced there, that the tax ought to be 25 cents instead of 10 cents. 

 The above statement I will make affidavit to, although it appears the 

 resolution was really passed at the instigation of the box makers 7 union, 

 which makes boxes for the manufacturers of oleomargarine. 



THE USE OF THE TAXING POWER. 



Now, a word regarding the advisability of employing the taxing power 

 of the Government as an internal protective measure. This question is 

 admitted to be one demanding mature deliberation, and the use of the 

 taxing power, it is conceded, must be carefully exercised. In 8 Howard, 

 82, we find the following: 



Tlie taxing power of a State is one of its attributes to sovereignty. * * The 

 only restraint is found in the responsibility of the legislature to their constituents. 



While in 4 Wheat., 316, we find: 



If the end be legitimate and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means 

 which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not 

 prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect. 



If a certain means to carry into effect any of the powers expressly given by the 

 Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not pro- 

 hibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative 

 discretion not of judicial cognizance. 



But probably the best argument for the use of the taxing power for 

 such a purpose is found in 9 Wall., in one of the original tax cases, 

 where a retail liquor dealer claimed immunity from the jurisdiction of 

 the State because of the fact that he held a license from the Govern- 

 ment. The court said in this case: 



There is nothing hostile or contradictory, therefore, in the acts of Congress to the 

 legislation of the State. What the latter prohibits the former, if the business is 

 found existing notwithstanding the prohibition, discourages by taxation. The two 

 lines of legislation proceed in the same direction and tend to the same results. 



Here the court judicially recognized in the taxing power a tendency 

 to discourage what the State prohibits. 



And again, Congress might well hesitate to select at random one 

 industry, the standing of which with the people might be open to ques- 

 tion, and discourage or hamper it with taxation. 



But courts have uniformly held that in the exercise of its taxing 

 power Congress is repousible only to the people; that the remedy of 

 the people for excessive taxation lies in an appeal to their representa- 

 tives and not to the courts. 



In this matter the i>eople of the States have expressed themselves by 



(*45) 



