It would be venturesome to attempt to predict what the Supreme Court will do about it. Many constitutional lawyers seem to think that Congress has succeeded in its attempt and that the act will be sustained. Certainly there are strong precedents pointing that way. Three in particular will be relied upon--the Veazie Bank case, the Oleomargarine case and the Narcotic Drug Act case. In the Veazie Bank case[1] the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a so-called tax law whose purpose and effect were to suppress the circulation of notes of the state banks. In the Oleomargarine case[2] the Court upheld a tax whose purpose and effect were to suppress the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine artificially colored to look like butter. In the Narcotic Drug case[3] the Court upheld a tax imposed by the so-called Harrison Act[4] whose purpose was to regulate the sale and use of narcotic drugs. In each of these cases there could be no doubt in the mind of any intelligent man as to the motive for the enactment. The Court has uniformly maintained, however, that when Congress acts within the limits of its constitutional authority, it is not the province of the judicial branch of the Government to question its motives.[5] [Footnote 1: _Veazie Bank v. Fenno_, 8 Wall., 533, decided in 1870.] [Footnote 2: _McCray v. United States_, 195 U.S., 27, decided in 1904.] [Footnote 3: _United States v. Doremus_, 249 U.S., 86, decided in 1919.] [Footnote 4: 38 Stat., 785.] [Footnote 5: _Smith v. Kansas City Title Company_, 255 U.S., 180, 210.] In the Narcotic Drug Act case[1] the Court held While Congress may not exert authority which is wholly reserved to the states, the power conferred by the Constitution to levy excise taxes, uniform throughout the United States, is to be exercised at the discretion of Congress; and, where the provisions of the law enacted have some reasonable relation to this power, the fact that they may have been impelled by a motive, or may accomplish a purpose, other than the raising of revenue, cannot invalidate them; nor can the fact that they affect the conduct of a business which is subject to regulation by the state police power. [Footnote 1: _United States v. Doremus_, 249 U.S., 86.] It is true that, while the Supreme Court may not question congressional motives, it cannot escape the obligation to construe a statute in the light of its true nature and effect. The Court has said:[1] The direct and necessary result of a statute must be taken into consideration when deciding as to its validity, even if that result is not in so many words either enacted or distinctly provided for. In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. [Footnote 1: _Collins v. New Hampshire_, 171 U.S., 30.]