Amend. 15.-Right of Citizens to Vote. SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This amendment brings the right of United States citizens to vote within the protection of Congress. The right of suffrage is not coextensive with citizenship, and this amendment was not designed to confer the right upon anyone. It left the power to determine the qualifications of voters with the several States. U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, in which the act of Congress of May 31, U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178. The power of Congress to legislate at all upon the subject of voting at State elections rests upon this amendment, and can be exercised only when a qualified voter is denied the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and it is to this extent only that the power of the State is limited by this clause. It operates to nullify a provision in a State constitution restricting the right of suffrage to the white race. U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 665. Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475. Guinn v. U. S. 238 U. S. 347. Meyers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651. A statute which purports to punish purely individual action can not be sustained as an appropriate exercise of the power conferred by this amendment on Congress to prevent action by the State through some one or more of its official representatives, and an indictment which charges no discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude is likewise destitute of support by such amendment. Revised Statutes, section 5507, hold repugnant to this amendment. James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 139. AMENDMENTS 16-19.-RECENT. Amendment 16.-INCOME TAX.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. In General It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense-an authority already possessed and never questioned-or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. In Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co. (240 U. S. 17) the court said: There is no escape from the conclusion that the amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived. See also Pollock v. Farmers', etc., Co., 157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 601. Stanton v. Baltic Min. Co., 240 U. S. 103. Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U. S. 115. Peck v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165. Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330. Questions of taxation must be determined by viewing what was actually done rather than the declared purpose of the participants. When applying the sixteenth amendment and income tax laws enacted under it, the courts must regard matters of substance and not of mere form. Weiss v. Stearn, 265 U. S. 242. Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, 296 Fed. 492. In Smietanka v. Bank (257 U. S. 602) it was held that the income tax act made no provision for taxing income held and accumulated by a trustee for unborn and unascertained beneficiaries. In De Ganay v. Lederer (250 U. S. 376) the court sustained a Federal tax upon the income from stock, bonds, and mortgages owned by alien nonresidents, but in the hands of a resident agent. 1 This amendment takes income taxes out of the apportionment provision of Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3 For ratification, see p. 31. Amend. 16.-Income Tax. In Atlantic Coast Line v. Daughton (262 U. S. 413) it was held that taxation of income from property, as distinguished from income of owner is constitutional. In U. S. v. Boss and Peake, 285 Fed. 410, it was held that retrospective income tax law was not unconstitutional. Taxation of Dividends Congress was at liberty, under this amendment, to tax as income without apportionment everything that became income in the ordinary sense of the word after the adoption of the amendment, including dividends received in the ordinary course by a stockholder from a corporation, even though they were extraordinary in amount and might appear upon analysis to be a mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent interest that the stockholder had in surplus of corporate assets previously existing. Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339. Stock Dividends The word "income as used in this amendment does not include a stock dividend. Such a dividened is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several States in accordance with Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, following Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418. U. S. v. Phellis, 257 U. S. 156. Rockefeller v. U. S., 257 U. S. 176. Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U. S. 247. Property Outside the United States Congress has power to tax the income received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad. Cook v. Tait, 265 U. S. 47. Proceeds of Life Insurance A construction of a war taxing act as imposing both an income and an estate tax on the proceeds of life insurance should be avoided unless required in express terms. U. S. v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U. S. 189. Salary of Federal Judges This amendment does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion otherwise existing for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on incomes from whatever source derived. Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, reversing 262 Fed. 550, and holding that the salary of a Federal judge was immune from an income tax by virtue of Article III, section 1, prohibiting the diminishing of a judge's salary during his term of office. Domestic and Foreign Corporations Income tax not unconstitutional because of inequality as between domestic and foreign corporations. National Paper Co. v. Edwards, 292 Fed. 633. Amend. 17.-Popular Election of Senators. Amendment 17.-POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS.1 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications. requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. In U. S. v. Aczel (219 Fed. 917) it was said that the right to vote for United States Senators is not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but has its foundation in the Constitution of the United States. Amendment 18.-PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.' SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. SECTION 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. In General This amendment is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers, and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every legislative act, whether by Congress, This amendment modifies et. I, sec. 3. For ratification, see p. 31. Amend. 18.-Prohibition. by a State legislature, or by a Territorial assembly, which authorizes or sanctions what the amendment prohibits. National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350. See also Ex parte Dillon, 262 Fed. 563. U. S. v. Colby, 265 Fed. 998. For a definition of liberty in connection with this amendment, see U. S. v. Kaplan, 286 Fed. 963. In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon (262 U. S. 100) it was held that the carrying of intoxicating liquors as sea stores, for beverage purposes, through the territorial waters or into the ports and harbors of the United States by foreign or domestic merchant ships is forbidden by this amendment and the act. In Ruppert v. Caffey (251 U. S. 264) the national prohibition act, in its provision that the words "beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors," in the war prohibition act shall be hereafter construed to mean any such beverages which contain one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol by volume, was held constitutional. For a case construing the war prohibition act, see U. S. v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210. In Amos v. U. S. (255 U. S. 313) the search for and seizure of illicit whiskey in defendant's home by revenue agents without a search warrant or warrant of arrest were held unlawful and violations of the fourth and fifth amendments. This amendment indicates no purpose to confiscate liquors lawfully owned when it became effective and intended for lawful use. Street v. Lincoln Safe Dep. Co., 254 U. S. 88. Under the Volstead act the owner of whiskey stored in a bonded warehouse can not secure its release upon payment of the tax for transportation to his dwelling for consumption there as a beverage. Corneli v. Moore, 257 U. S. 491, distinguishing the Street case, supra. Section 2 of the supplemental prohibition act of November 23, 1921, in so far as it prevents physicians from prescribing intoxicating malt liquors for medicinal purposes, held constitutional. Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545. In Hawes v. Georgia (258 U. S. 1), it was held that a State law providing that a person prosecuted for permitting apparatus for distilling intoxicating liquors to be upon real estate actually occupied by him shall be prima facie presumed to have known of its presence, was not invalid. Pennsylvania Brooks law, prohibiting sales without license, is not contrary to this amendment or the Volstead act. Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U. S. 403. In U. S. v. Yuginovich (256 U. S. 462) it was said: That Congress may, under the broad authority of the taxing power, tax intoxicating liquors notwithstanding their production is prohibited and |