Speech #690155278

Our Supreme Court has passed on thaft question. I want to read from what was known as the Headmoney case. in 112 United States. page 580. That case arose out of an act which was passed regulating immigration. I can perhaps state its purpose better by reading just a short excerpt from it: The act of Congress of August 3. 1882. "To regulate Immigration." which imposes upon the owners of steam or sailing vessels who shall bring passengers from a foreign port into a port of the United States a duty of 60 cents for every such passenger not a citizen of this country. is a valid exercise of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Further. in the syllabus of the case. the court said: A tax is uniform. within the meaning of the constitutional provision on that subject. when it operates with the same effect in all places where the subject of it is found. and is not wanting in such uniformity because the thing taxed Is not equally distributed in all parts of the United States. As I understand the position of my friend from Montana. It Is that not only are the appropriations proposed to be made by this bill out of the Treasury of the United States unconstitutional. but the equalization fees provided are unconstitutional and void. These cases grew out of a statute passed in 1882 providing: That there shall be levied. collected. and paid a duty of 50 cents for each and every passenger. not a citizen of the United States. who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United States. The act further provided: The money thus collected. shall be paid into the United States Treasury. and shall constitute a fund to be called the immigrant fund. and shall be used. under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. to defray theexpense of regulating Immigration under this act. and for the care of Immigrants arriving In the United States. for the relief of such as are in distress. and for the general purposes and expenses of carrying this act into effect. I stop here long enough. Mr. President. to say: Is it possible that our courts will hold an act to care for immigrants arriving in the United States. and for the relief of such as are in distress. is a public p1qrpose. and that .the stabilization of farm prices and the aiding of cooperative marketing of farm products. is not a public purpose? Why. it seems to me. Mr. President. that when this immigration act was upheld as constitutional and as being for a public purpose. there could be no question about the appropriation for stabilization of farm prices being a public purpose. It was claimed In that case that the tax was not levied to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. and that it was not uniform throughout the United States. as required by the Constitution. After disposing of the main questions in favor of the act. the court said: Other objections are made to this statute.