The power of Congress to legislate being conceded, the wisdom or expediency of the manner in which the power is exercised is beyond judicial criticism or control.15

If the statute is beyond the constitutional power of Congress, the court would err in the performance of a solemn duty if it did not so declare. But if nothing more can be said than that Congress erred . . . the remedy for the error and the attendant mischief is the selection of new Senators and Representatives, who, by legislation, will make such changes in existing statutes, or adopt such new statutes, as may be demanded by their constituents and be consistent with law." Northern Securities Co. v. United States (193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct Rep. 436; 48 L. ed. 679).

13 7 Wall. 506; 19 L. ed. 264.

14In McCray v. United States (195 U. S. 27; 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769; 49 L. ed. 78) the authorities upon this point are reviewed, the court saying: "The decisions of this court from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted. ... On the contrary, the doctrine of a number of cases is inconsistent with its existence."

15 In Treat v. White (181 U. S. 264; 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; 45 L. ed. 853) with reference to a stamp duty levied by Congress, the court say: "The power of Congress in this direction is unlimited. It does not come within the province of this court to consider why agreements to sell shall be subject to the stamp duty, and agreements to buy not. It is enough that Congress, in this legislation, has imposed a stamp duty upon this one, and not upon the other." In Patton v. Brady (184 U. S. 608; 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; 46 L. ed. 713) the court say: "It is no part of the function of a court to inquire into the reasonableness of the excise, either as regards the amount or the property upon which it is imposed."