Child Labor Tax Case/Opinion of the Court
This case presents the question of the constitutional validity of the Child Labor Tax Law. The plaintiff below, the Drexel Furniture Company, is engaged in the manufacture of furniture in the Western district of North Carolina. On September 20, 1921, it received a notice from Bailey, United States collector of internal revenue for the district, that it had been assessed $6,312.79 for having during the taxable year 1919 employed and permitted to work in its factory a boy under 14 years of age, thus incurring the tax of 10 per cent. on its net profits for that year. The company paid the tax under protest, and, after rejection of its claim for a refund, brought this suit. On demurrer to an amended complaint, judgment was entered for the company against the collector for the full amount, with interest. The writ of error is prosecuted by the collector direct from the District Court under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215).

The Child Labor Tax Law is title No. XII of an act entitled 'An act to provide revenue and for other purposes,' approved February 24, 1919, 40 Stat. 1057, 1138 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 6336 7/8 a to 6336 7/8 h). The heading of the title is 'Tax on Employment of Child Labor.' It begins with section 1200 and includes eight sections. Section 1200 is as follows:

'Sec. 1200. That every person (other than a bona fide boys'      or girls' canning club recognized by the agricultural      department of a state and of the United States) operating (a)      any mine or quarry situated in the United States in which      children under the age of sixteen years have been employed or      permitted to work during any portion of the taxable year; or      (b) any mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing      establishment situated in the United States in which children      under the age of fourteen years have been employed or      permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen      have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours      in any day or more than six days in any week, or after the      hour of seven o'clock post meridian, or before the hour of      six o'clock ante meridian, during any portion of the taxable      year, shall pay for each taxable year, in addition to all      other taxes imposed by law, an excise tax equivalent to 10      per centum of the entire net profits received or accrued for      such year from the sale or disposition of the product of such      mine, quarry, mill, cannery, workship, factory, or      manufacturing establishment.'

Section 1203 relieves from liability to the tax any one who employs a child, believing him to be of proper age relying on a certificate to this effect issued by persons prescribed by a board consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Secretary of Labor, or issued by state authorities. The section also provides in paragraph (b) that—

'The tax imposed by this title shall not be imposed in the      case of any person who proves to the satisfaction of the      Secretary that the only employment or permission to work      which but for this section would subject him to the tax, has      been of a child employed or permitted to work under a mistake      of fact as to the age of such child and without intention to      evade the tax.'

Section 1206 gives authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or any other person authorized by him 'to enter and inspect at any time any mine, quarry, mill, cannery, workshop, factory or manufacturing establishment.' The Secretary of Labor, or any person whom he authorizes, is given like authority in order to comply with a request of the Commissioner to make such inspection and report the same. Any person who refuses entry or obstructs inspection is made subject to fine or imprisonment or both.

The law is attacked on the ground that it is a regulation of the employment of child labor in the states-an exclusively state function under the federal Constitution and within the reservations of the Tenth Amendment. It is defendant on the ground that it is a mere excise tax levied by the Congress of the United States under its broad power of taxation conferred by section 8, article 1, of the federal Constitution. We must construe the law and interpret the intent and meaning of Congress from the language of the act. The words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the context shows that they are differently used. Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevitably involve? Or does it regulate by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty? If a tax, it is clearly an excise. If it were an excise on a commodity or other thing of value, we might not be permitted under previous decisions of this court to infer solely from its heavy burden that the act intends a prohibition instead of a tax. But this act is more. It provides a heavy exaction for a departure from a detailed and specified course of conduct in business. That course of business is that employers shall employ in mines and quarries, children of an age greater than 16 years; in mills and factories, children of an age greater than 14 years, and shall prevent children of less than 16 years in mills and factories from working more than 8 hours a day or 6 days in the week. If an employer departs from this prescribed course of business, he is to pay to the government one-tenth of his entire net income in the business for a full year. The amount is not to be proportioned in any degree to the extent or frequency of the departures, but is to be paid by the employer in full measure whether he employs 500 children for a year, or employs only one for a day. Moreover, if he does not know the child is within the named age limit, he is not to pay; that is to say, it is only where he knowingly departs from the prescribed course that payment is to be exacted. Scienters are associated with penalties, not with taxes. The employer's factory is to be subject to inspection at any time not only by the taxing officers of the Treasury, the Department normally charged with the collection of taxes, but also by the Secretary of Labor and his subordinates, whose normal function is the advancement and protection of the welfare of the workers. In the light of these features of the act, a court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed. Its prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable. All others can see and understand this. How can we properly shut our minds to it?

It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not intrusted to Congress, but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the states. We cannot avoid the duty, even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self-government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half.

Out of a proper respect for the acts of a co-ordinate branch of the government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting, from the weight of the tax, it was intended to destroy its subject. But in the act before us the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states.

The difference between a tax and a penalty is sometimes difficult to define, and yet the consequences of the distinction in the required method of their collection often are important. Where the sovereign enacting the law has power to impose both tax and penalty, the difference between revenue production and mere regulation may be immaterial, but not so when one sovereign can impose a tax only, and the power of regulation rests in another. Taxes are occasionally imposed in the discretion of the Legislature on proper subjects with the primary motive of obtaining revenue from them and with the incidental motive of discouraging them by making their continuance onerous. They do not lose their character as taxes because of the incidental motive. But there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty, with the characteristics of regulation and punishment. Such is the case in the law before us. Although Congress does not invalidate the contract of employment or expressly declare that the employment within the mentioned ages is illegal, it does exhibit its intent practically to achieve the latter result by adopting the criteria of wrongdoing and imposing its principal consequence on those who transgress its standard.

The case before us cannot be distinguished from that of Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 Sup. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101, 3 A. L. R. A. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918 E, 724. Congress there enacted a law to prohibit gransportation in interstate commerce of goods made at a factory in which there was employment of children within the same ages and for the same number of hours a day and days in a week as are penalized by the act in this case. This court held the law in that case to be void. It said:

'In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of      a prohibition against the movement in interstate commerce of      ordinary commercial commodities, to regulate the hours of      labor of children in factories and mines within the states, a      purely state authority.'

In the case at the bar, Congress in the name of a tax which on the face of the act is penalty seeks to do the same thing, and the effort must be equally futile.

The analogy of the Dagenhart Case is clear. The congressional power over interstate commerce is, within its proper scope, just as complete and unlimited as the congressional power to tax, and the legislative motive in its exercise is just as free from judicial suspicion and inquiry. Yet when Congress threatened to stop interstate commerce in ordinary and necessary commodities, unobjectionable as subjects of transportation, and to deny the same to the people of a state in order to coerce them into compliance with Congress' regulation of state concerns, the court said this was not in fact regulation of interstate commerce, but rather that of state concerns and was invalid. So here the so-called tax is a penalty to coerce people of a state to act as Congress wishes them to act in respect of a matter completely the business of the state government under the federal Constitution. This case requires as did the Dagenhart Case the application of the principle announced by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 423 (4 L. Ed. 579), in a much-quoted passage: 'Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt   measures which are prohibited by the Constitution; or   should Congress, under the pretext of executing its   powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not   intrusted to the government; it would become the painful   duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a   decision come before it, to say that such an act was not   the law of the land.'

But it is pressed upon us that this court has gone so far in sustaining taxing measures the effect and tendency of which was to accomplish purposes not directly within congressional power that we are bound by authority to maintain this law.

The first of these is Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 19 L. Ed. 482. In that case, the validity of a law which increased a tax on the circulating notes of persons and state banks from one per centum to 10 per centum was in question. The main question was whether this was a direct tax to be apportioned among the several states 'according to their respective numbers.' This was answered in the negative. The second objection was stated by the court:

'It is insisted, however, that the tax in the case before us      is excessive, and so excessive as to indicate a purpose on      the part of Congress to destroy the franchise of the bank,      and is, therefore, beyond the constitutional power of      Congress.'

'The first answer to this is that the judicial cannot      prescribe to the legislative departments of the government      limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged powers. The      power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons, but      the responsibility of the Legislature is not to the courts,      but to the people by whom its members are elected. So if a      particular tax bears heavily upon a corporation, or a class      of corporations, it cannot, for that reason only, be      pronounced contrary to the Constitution.' It will be observed that the sole objection to the tax here was its excessive character. Nothing else appeared on the face of the act. It was an increase of a tax admittedly legal to a higher rate and that was all. There were no elaborate specifications on the face of the act, as here, indicating the purpose to regulate matters of state concern and jurisdiction through an exaction so applied as to give it the qualities of a penalty for violation of law rather than a tax.

It should be noted, too, that the court, speaking of the extent of the taxing power, used these cautionary words (8 Wall. 541, 19 L. Ed. 482):

'There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from      the principles of the Constitution itself. It would      undoubtedly be an abuse of the power if so exercised as to      impair the separate existence and independent self-government      of the states, or if exercised for ends inconsistent with the      limited grants of power in the Constitution.'

But more than this, what was charged to be the object of the excessive tax was within the congressional authority, as appears from the second answer which the court gave to the objection. After having pointed out the legitimate means taken by Congress to secure a national medium or currency, the court said (8 Wall. 549, 19 L. Ed. 482):

'Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional      powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole      country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may,      constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by      appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the      quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by      law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on      the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain, by      suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes      not issued under its own authority. Without this power,      indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.'

The next case is that of McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561. That, like the Veazie Bank Case, was the increase of an excise tax upon a subject properly taxable in which the taxpayers claimed that the tax had become invalid because the increase was excessive. It was a tax on oleomargarine, a substitute for butter. The tax on the white oleomargarine was one-quarter of a cent a pound, and on the yellow oleomargarine was first 2 cents and was then by the act in question increased to 10 cents per pound. This court held that the discretion of Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers to levy excise taxes could not be controlled or limited by the courts because the latter might deem the incidence of the tax oppressive or even destructive. It was the same principle as that applied in the Veazie Bank Case. This was that Congress, in selecting its subjects for taxation, might impose the burden where and as it would, and that a motive disclosed in its selection to discourage sale or manufacture of an article by a higher tax than on some other did not invalidate the tax. In neither of these cases did the law objected to show on its face as does the law before us the detailed specifications of a regulation of a state concern and business with a heavy exaction to promote the effecicacy of such regulation.

The third case is that of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 Sup. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312. It involved the validity of an excise tax levied on the doing of business by all corporations, joint-stock companies, associations organized for profit having a capital stock represented by shares, and insurance companies, and measured the excise by the net income of the corporations. There was not in that case the slightest doubt that the tax was a tax, and a tax for revenue, but it was attacked on the ground that such a tax could be made excessive and thus used by Congress to destroy the existence of state corporations. To this, this court gave the same answer as in the Veazie Bank and McCray Cases. It is not so strong an authority for the government's contention as they are.

The fourth case is United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 39 Sup. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493. That involved the validity of the Narcotic Drug Act (38 Stat. 785 [Comp. St. § 6287g et seq.]), which imposed a special tax on the manufacture, importation and sale or gift of opium or cocoa leaves or their compounds or derivatives. It required every person subject to the special tax, to register with the collector of internal revenue his name and place of business and forbade him to sell except upon the written order of the person to whom the sale was made on a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The vendor was required to keep the order for two years, and the purchaser to keep a duplicate for the same time and all were to be subject to official inspection. Similar requirements were made as to sales upon prescriptions of a physician and as to the dispensing of such drugs directly to a patient by a physician. The validity of a special tax in the nature of an excise tax on the manufacture, importation, and sale of such drugs was, of course, unquestioned. The provisions for subjecting the sale and distribution of the drugs to official supervision and inspection were held to have a reasonable relation to the enforcement of the tax and were therefore held valid.

The court said that the act could not be declared invalid just because another motive than taxation, not shown on the face of the act, might have contributed to its passage. This case does not militate against the conclusion we have reached in respect to the law now before us. The court, there, made manifest its view that the provisions of the so-called taxing act must be naturally and reasonably adapted to the collection of the tax and not solely to the achievement of some other purpose plainly within state power.

For the reasons given, we must hold the Child Labor Tax Law invalid and the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice CLARKE, dissents. 

Notes