POWER TO PREVENT HARMFUL USE OF THE POSTAL FACILITIES
Some thirty years later Congress pa.s.sed the first of a series of acts to exclude from the mails publications designed to defraud the public or corrupt its morals. In the pioneer case of Ex parte Jackson,[1140] the Court sustained the exclusion of circulars relating to lotteries on the general ground that "the right to designate what shall be carried necessarily involves the right to determine what shall be excluded."[1141] The leading fraud order case, decided in 1904, holds to the same effect.[1142] Pointing out that it is "an indispensable adjunct to a civil government," to supply postal facilities, the Court restated its premise that the "legislative body in thus establishing a postal service, may annex such conditions to it as it chooses."[1143] Later cases appear to have qualified these sweeping declarations. In upholding requirements that publishers of newspapers and periodicals seeking second-cla.s.s mailing privileges file complete information regarding ownership, indebtedness and circulation and that all paid advertis.e.m.e.nts in such publications be marked as such, the Court emphasized that these provisions were reasonably designed to safeguard the second-cla.s.s privilege from exploitation by mere advertising publications. Chief Justice White warned that the Court by no means intended to imply that it endorsed the government"s "broad contentions concerning the existence of arbitrary power through the cla.s.sification of the mails, or by way of condition * * *"[1144] Again, in Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. _v._ Burleson,[1145] where the Court sustained an order of the Postmaster General excluding from the second-cla.s.s privilege a newspaper which he found to have systematically published matter banned by the Espionage Act of 1917, the claim of absolute power in Congress to withhold this privilege was sedulously avoided. More recently, when reversing an order denying the second-cla.s.s privilege to a mailable publication because of the poor taste and vulgarity of its contents, on the ground that the Postmaster General exceeding his statutory authority, Justice Douglas a.s.sumed, in the opinion of the Court, "that Congress has a broad power of cla.s.sification and need not open second-cla.s.s mail to publications of all types."[1146]
THE EXCLUSION POWER AS AN ADJUNCT TO OTHER POWERS
In the cases just reviewed the mails were closed to particular types of communication which were deemed to be harmful. A much broader power of exclusion was a.s.serted in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.[1147] To induce compliance with the regulatory requirements of that act, Congress denied the privilege of using the mails for any purpose to holding companies which failed to obey that law, irrespective of the character of the material to be carried. Viewing the matter realistically, the Supreme Court treated this provision as a penalty.
While it held this statute const.i.tutional because the regulations whose infractions were thus penalized were themselves valid,[1148] it declared that "Congress may not exercise its control over the mails to enforce a requirement which lies outside its const.i.tutional province, * * *."[1149]
STATE REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE MAILS
In determining the extent to which State laws may impinge upon persons or corporations whose services are utilized by Congress in executing its postal powers, the task of the Supreme Court has been to determine whether particular measures are consistent with the general policies indicated by Congress. Broadly speaking, the Court has approved regulations which have a trivial or remote relation to the operation of the postal service, while disallowing those which const.i.tute a serious impediment to it. Thus a State statute which granted to one company an exclusive right to operate a telegraph business in the State was found to be incompatible with a federal law which, in granting to any telegraph company the right to construct its lines upon post roads, was interpreted as a prohibition of State monopolies in a field which Congress was ent.i.tled to regulate in the exercise of its combined power over commerce and post roads.[1150] An Illinois statute which, as construed by the State courts, required an interstate mail train to make a detour of seven miles in order to stop at a designated station, also was held to be an unconst.i.tutional interference with the power of Congress under this clause.[1151] But a Minnesota statute which required intrastate trains to stop at county seats was found to be un.o.bjectionable.[1152] Local laws cla.s.sifying postal workers with railroad employees for the purpose of determining a railroad"s liability for personal injuries,[1153] or subjecting a union of railway mail clerks to a general law forbidding any "labor organization" to deny any person membership because of his race, color or creed,[1154] have been held not to conflict with national legislation or policy in this field.
Despite the interference _pro tanto_ with the performance of a federal function, a State may arrest a postal employee charged with murder while he is engaged in carrying out his official duties,[1155] but it cannot punish a person for operating a mail truck over its highways without procuring a driver"s license from State authorities.[1156]
Clause 8. _The Congress shall have Power_ * * * To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyrights and Patents
SCOPE OF THE POWER
This clause is the foundation upon which the national patent and copyright laws rest, although it uses neither of those terms. So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years.[1157] Copyright law, in turn, traces back to the statute of 1710 which secured to authors of books the sole right of publishing them for designated periods.[1158]
Congress was not, however, by this provision, vested with anything akin to the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of monopolistic privileges. Its power is limited as to subject matter, and as to the purpose and duration of the rights granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts.[1159] While Congress may grant exclusive rights only for a limited period, it may extend the term upon the expiration of the period originally specified, and in so doing may protect the rights of purchasers and a.s.signees.[1160] The copyright and patent laws do not have, of their own force, any extraterritorial operation.[1161]
PATENTABLE DISCOVERIES
The protection afforded by acts of Congress under this clause is limited to new and useful inventions,[1162] and while a patentable invention is a mental achievement,[1163] yet for an idea to be patentable it must have first taken physical form.[1164] Despite the fact that the Const.i.tution uses the term "discovery" rather than "invention," a patent may not issue for the discovery of a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature; "if there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end."[1165] Conversely, the mental processes which are thus applied must display "more ingenuity * * * than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art";[1166] and while combination patents have been at times sustained,[1167] the acc.u.mulation of old devices is patentable "only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts."[1168] The Court"s insistence on the presence of "inventive genius" as the test of patentability goes far back and has been reiterated again and again in slightly varying language,[1169] although it seems to have had little effect on the point of view of the Patent Office.[1170]
PROCEDURE IN ISSUING PATENTS
The standard of patentability is a const.i.tutional standard, and the question of the validity of a patent is a question of law.[1171]
Congress may authorize the issuance of a patent for an invention by a special, as well as by general law, provided the question as to whether the patentees device is in truth an invention is left open to investigation under the general law.[1172] The function of the Commissioner of Patents in issuing letters patent is deemed to be quasi-judicial in character. Hence an act granting a right of appeal from the Commission to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is not unconst.i.tutional as conferring executive power upon a judicial body.[1173]
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHT SECURED
The leading case bearing on the nature of the rights which Congress is authorized to _secure_ is that of Wheaton _v._ Peters. Wheaton charged Peters with having infringed his copyright on the twelve volumes of "Wheaton"s Reports" wherein are reported the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for the years from 1816 to 1827 inclusive. Peters"s defense turned on the proposition that inasmuch as Wheaton had not complied with all of the requirements of the act of Congress, his alleged copyright was void. Wheaton, while denying this a.s.sertion of fact, further contended that the statute was only intended to _secure_ him in his pre-existent rights at common law. These at least, he claimed, the Court should protect. A divided Court held in favor of Peters on the legal question. It denied, in the first place, that there was any principle of the common law which protected an author in the sole right to continue to publish a work once published. It denied, in the second place, that there is any principle of law, common or otherwise, which pervades the Union except such as are embodied in the Const.i.tution and the acts of Congress. Nor, in the third place, it held, did the word "securing" in the Const.i.tution recognize the alleged common law principle which Wheaton invoked. The exclusive right which Congress is authorized to _secure_ to authors and inventors owes its existence solely to the acts of Congress securing it,[1174] from which it follows that the rights granted by a patent or copyright are subject to such qualifications and limitations as Congress, in its unhampered consultation of the public interest, sees fit to impose.[1175]
In giving to authors the exclusive right to dramatize any of their works, Congress did not exceed its powers under this clause. Even as applied to pantomime dramatization by means of silent motion pictures, the act was sustained against the objection that it extended the copyright to ideas rather than to the words in which they were clothed.[1176] But the copyright of the description of an art in a book was held not to lay a foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The latter can be protected, if at all, only by letters patent.[1177] Since copyright is a species of property distinct from the ownership of the equipment used in making copies of the matter copyrighted, the sale of a copperplate under execution did not pa.s.s any right to print and publish the map which the copperplate was designed to produce.[1178] A patent right may, however, be subjected, by bill in equity, to payment of a judgment debt of the patentee.[1179]
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER PATENT RIGHTS
Letters patent for a new invention or discovery in the arts confer upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which cannot be appropriated or used by the Government without just compensation.[1180] Congress may, however, modify rights under an existing patent, provided vested property rights are not thereby impaired,[1181] but it does not follow that it may authorize an inventor to recall rights which he has granted to others or reinvest in him rights of property which he had previously conveyed for a valuable and fair consideration.[1182] Furthermore, the rights which the present statutes confer are subject to the Anti-Trust Acts, though it can be hardly said that the cases in which the Court has endeavored to draw the line between the rights claimable by patentees and the kind of monopolistic privileges which are forbidden by those acts exhibit entire consistency in their holdings.[1183]
STATE POWER AFFECTING PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
Nor do the patent laws displace the police or taxing powers of the States. Whatever rights are secured to inventors must be enjoyed in subordination to the general authority of the State over all property within its limits. A statute of Kentucky requiring the condemnation of illuminating oils which were inflammable at less than 130 degrees Fahrenheit, was held not to interfere with any right secured by the patent laws, although the oil for which the patent was issued could not be made to comply with State specifications.[1184] In the absence of federal legislation, a State may prescribe reasonable regulations for the transfer of patent rights so as to protect its citizens from fraud.
Hence a requirement of State law that the words "given for a patent right" appear on the face of notes given in payment for such right is not unconst.i.tutional.[1185] Royalties received from patents or copyrights are subject to a nondiscriminating State income tax, a holding to the contrary in 1928 having been subsequently overruled.[1186]
TRADE-MARKS AND ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nTS
In the famous Trade-Mark Cases,[1187] decided in 1879, the Supreme Court held void acts of Congress which, in apparent reliance upon this clause, extended the protection of the law to trade-marks registered in the Patent Office. "The ordinary trade-mark" said Justice Miller for the Court, "has no necessary relation to invention or discovery"; nor is it to be cla.s.sified "under the head of writings of authors." It does not "depend upon novelty, invention, discovery, or any work of the brain."[1188] Not many years later the Court, again speaking through Justice Miller, ruled that a photograph may be const.i.tutionally copyright,[1189] while still more recently a circus poster was held to be ent.i.tled to the same protection. In answer to the objection of the Circuit Court that a lithograph which "has no other use than that of a mere advertis.e.m.e.nt * * * (would not be within) the meaning of the Const.i.tution," Justice Holmes summoned forth the shades of Velasquez, Whistler, Rembrandt, Ruskin, Degas, and others in support of the proposition that it is not for the courts to attempt to judge the worth of pictorial ill.u.s.trations outside the narrowest and most obvious limits.[1190]
Clause 9. _The Congress shall have Power_ * * * To const.i.tute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; _See_ article III, p. 528.
Clause 10. _The Congress shall have Power_ * * * To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.
Piracies, Felonies, and Offenses Against the Law of Nations
ORIGIN OF THE CLAUSE
"When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and a.s.sumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. * * * The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character, * * *"[1191] These words of Chancellor Kent expressed the view of the binding character of International Law which was generally accepted at the time the Const.i.tution was adopted. During the Revolutionary War, Congress took cognizance of all matters arising under the law of nations and professed obedience to that law.[1192] Under the Articles of Confederation, it was given exclusive power to appoint courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, but no provision was made for dealing with offenses against the law of nations.[1193] The draft of the Const.i.tution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations."[1194] In the debate on the floor of the Convention the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, "felonies" and the "law of nations," were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies and offenses against the law of nations.[1195]
DEFINITION OF OFFENSES
The fact that the Const.i.tutional Convention considered it necessary to give Congress authority to define offenses against the law of nations does not mean that in every case Congress must undertake to codify that law or mark its precise boundaries before prescribing punishments for infractions thereof. An act punishing "the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations" was held to be an appropriate exercise of the const.i.tutional authority to "define and punish" the offense, since it adopted by reference the sufficiently precise definition of International Law.[1196] Similarly, in Ex parte Quirin,[1197] the Court found that by the reference in the Fifteenth Article of War to "offenders or offenses that * * * by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions * * *," Congress had "exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within const.i.tutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals."[1198] Where, conversely, Congress defines with particularity a crime which is "an offense against the law of nations," the law is valid, even if it contains no recital disclosing that it was enacted pursuant to this clause. Thus the duty which the law of nations casts upon every government to prevent a wrong being done within its own dominion to another nation with which it is at peace, or to the people thereof, was found to furnish a sufficient justification for the punishment of the counterfeiting within the United States, of notes, bonds and other securities of foreign governments.[1199]
EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH OF THE POWER
Since this clause contains the only specific grant of power to be found in the Const.i.tution for the punishment of offenses outside the territorial limits of the United States, a lower federal court held in 1932[1200] that the general grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction by article III, section 2, could not be construed as extending either the legislative or judicial power of the United States to cover offenses committed on vessels outside the United States but not on the high seas.
Reversing that decision, the Supreme Court held that this provision "cannot be deemed to be a limitation on the powers, either legislative or judicial, conferred on the National Government by article III, -- 2.
The two clauses are the result of separate steps independently taken in the Convention, by which the jurisdiction in admiralty, previously divided between the Confederation and the States, was transferred to the National Government. It would be a surprising result, and one plainly not antic.i.p.ated by the framers or justified by principles which ought to govern the interpretation of a const.i.tution devoted to the redistribution of governmental powers, if part of them were lost in the process of transfer. To construe the one clause as limiting rather than supplementing the other would be to ignore their history, and without effecting any discernible purpose of their enactment, to deny to both the States and the National Government powers which were common attributes of sovereignty before the adoption of the Const.i.tution. The result would be to deny to both the power to define and punish crimes of less gravity than felonies committed on vessels of the United States while on the high seas, and crimes of every grade committed on them while in foreign territorial waters."[1201] Within the meaning of this section an offense is committed on the high seas even where the vessel on which it occurs is lying at anchor on the road in the territorial waters of another country.[1202]
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. _The Congress shall have power_ * * *:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
To provide and maintain a Navy.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
The War Power