The principal argument for lessening the independence of the judges and making them more subservient to the inconstant majority seems to be that otherwise the judges will misuse their power and impede the operation of statutes they do not themselves approve of. The argument has little or no foundation in fact. Perhaps among the hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of holding a statute unconstitutional a few may seem to have been so decided because the judges thought them unwise and oppressive. Some expressions in judicial opinions have been unfortunate in that respect, but the courts everywhere in this country, now if not at first, disclaim any such power. The same Chief Justice Marshall, who had so convincingly stated the duty of the judiciary to refuse effect to unconstitutional statutes, later in _McCulloch_ v. _Maryland_, 4 _Wheat._ 316, disclaimed for the courts all pretensions to any power to inquire into the necessity of any statute, or in any way to interfere with the discretion of the legislature. In strong and explicit language other courts have disclaimed such pretensions. The Minnesota court in _State_ v. _Corbett_, 57 _Minn._ 345, held that courts were not at liberty to declare a statute unconstitutional because it is thought by them to be unjust or oppressive, or to violate some natural, social, or political right of the citizen, unless it can be shown that such injustice is prohibited, or such rights protected, by the constitution. The Pennsylvania court in _Com._ v. _Moir_, 199 _Pa. St._ 534, used this language: "Much of the argument and nearly all the specific objections advanced are to the wisdom and propriety and to the justice of the statute and the motives supposed to have inspired its passage. With these we have nothing to do. They are beyond our province and are considerations to be adduced solely to the legislature." The court of West Virginia in _Slack_ v. _Jacob_, 8 _W. Va._ 612, said: "That the judges are convinced that a statute is contrary to natural right, absolute justice, or sound morality does not authorize them to refuse it effect." The court of Washington in _Fishing Co._ v. _George_, 28 _Wash._ 200, held that "a statute cannot be ignored by the courts because leading in its application to absurd, incongruous, or mischievous results." A few cases may also be cited showing how relentlessly this disclaimer is applied. The court of New York in _Kittinger_ v. _Buffalo Traction Co._, 160 _N. Y._ 377, held that the courts had no power to inquire into the motives inducing legislation and could not impute to the legislature any other than public motives. The Pennsylvania court in _Sunbury R.R. Co._ v. _People_, 33 _Pa. St._ 278, had urged upon it the argument that the statute in question had been "passed in fraud of the rights of the people." The court held that, if true, that fact would not authorize it to refuse it effect. The Tennessee court in _Lynn_ v. _Polk_, 76 _Tenn. St._ 121, was asked