OCR Text |
Show 58 Court however left unascertained the scope of the general-wel- fare power.253 In the recent Gerlach case, the Court noted that:254 Congress has a substantive power to tax and appropriate for the general welfare, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the common benefit as dis- tinguished from some mere local purpose. And then it asserted:255 Thus the power of Congress to promote the general wel- fare through large-scale projects for reclamation, irriga- tion, and other internal improvement, is now as clear and ample as its power to accomplish the same results indirectly through resort to strained interpretation of the power over navigation (italics supplied). The italicized words render the dictum somewhat enigmatic. The statement nevertheless seems to lean toward a view that such projects may be validly authorized under the general- welfare power. In any event, the sole test indicated is that the power must be exercised "for the common benefit as dis- tinguished from some mere local purpose." Equitable Apportionment A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. * * * Both States have real and substantial interests in the River that must be reconciled as best they may be. The different traditions and practices in different parts of the country may lead to varying results, but the effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas.256 258 297 U. S. at 68. 284 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 738 (1950), citing Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640 (1937). 1185 339 U.S. at 738. 184 New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 342-343 (1931). |