xt7wwp9t2q46_60 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Physical rights are retained by the owning repository. Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 63 "New Deal Laws In Federal Courts: A Review of Decisions by the Federal Judiciary and Their Effect in Checking Attempts to Subvert the American Constitutional System," August, 1935 text No. 63 "New Deal Laws In Federal Courts: A Review of Decisions by the Federal Judiciary and Their Effect in Checking Attempts to Subvert the American Constitutional System," August, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_63/Am_Lib_Leag_63_001/Am_Lib_Leag_63_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_60 xt7wwp9t2q46 Pamphlets Available * *
ik
Copies of the following pamphlets and 7 {
other League literature may be obtained S
upon application to the League’s national
headquarters :
Statement Ief Principles andIPu1i£osLes
A ` a iberty eague- ts a_ orm .
Aglgiilagfsis of the President’s Budget Message
Economic Security
Inflation
The Thirty Hour Week
The Pending Banking Bill
The Hgldingl Company Bill
P ice ontro
Tiio Labor Relations Bill * * *
The Bituminous Coal Bill ·
Extension of the NRA
The Farmers’ Home Bill
The TVA Amendments
The New Deal. Its Unsound Theories and Ir-
rqeconcilable Policies-Speech by Ralph M. A Review Of Decisions by the
haw
H%w Btgmg/Ieet the Issue—Speech by William Federal Judiciary and Their
The- Supreme Court and the New Deal ' '
Tl? Dutyboféthar to the Social Order- EE°°t]_;°Clh°°11i1“gAtt°mPtS
peech y . es tey Am '
AIPODGE Letter to the President-By Dr. Neil tijiu Vert t 6 1 crlcan
, ot er ° '
Theallevisdd AAA Amendments nstltutlona System
The Return to Democracy-Speech by Jouett
Shouse
The President’s Tax Program
The American Bar-The Trustee of American
Institutions—Speech by Albert C. Ritchie _
Two lAmazing Years-Speech by Nicholas Roose-
ve t
Fabian Socialism in the New Deal-Speech by
Demarest Lloyd ERIC
· Tlga I;leople’s Money-Speech by Dr. Walter E. VBA 44, ‘
pg r 'utifgi
The Principles of Constitutional Democracy and ,. U
the New Deal-Speech by R. E. Desvernine T, , ? . ;
Which Road to Take?-Speech by J. Howard ¢ " O 0
Pew Try L?}
The Blessings of Stability-Speech by James W. .
Wadsworth
Legislation-By Coercion or Constitution-
Speech by Jouett Shouse
Recovery by Statute-Speech by Dr. Neil i
Carothers
Expanding Bureaucracy
The Imperilment of Democracy-Speech by i
L Fitzgleraldglagl O _
‘wma ing y xecutive rd r 4
The Test of Citizenship-Speelhh by Dean Carl AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
W. Ackerman National Headquarters
Today’s Lessons for Tomorrow-Speech by Cap- NATIQNAL PRESS BUILDING
tain William H. Stayton WASHINGTON D C
AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING * *
WASHINGTON, D. C. -
Document N0. 63
4 August: I935
New Deal Laws 111 Federal Courts
ir
Preservation of the essentials of the American
V form of government is the issue raised directly
or indirectly in many hundreds of cases involving
New Deal laws in the Federal courts.
F Constitutional principles have been upheld by
the Supreme Court of the United States in several
notable decisions and by Federal District Courts
and Circuit Courts of Appeals in scores of cases
which have not reached the highest court.
Fundamental concepts of the Constitution are
involved. One is the separation of the powers of
government among legislative, executive and
judicial branches, coordinate in authority and
1 functions. Another is the dual sovereignty of
the Federal Government and the states. One or
the other, or both, of these fundamental concepts
have been at issue in nearly all litigation affect-
ing New Deal legislation.
W 1 Anothpr lvitajl polpsgtuticénal poinitl cplncernls kthe
. . . c ause 0 t e it men ment w ic pro i its
HEN you have finished with this the taking of private property without due pro-
pamphlet please pass it on to some cess of law or for public use without just com-
_ . . , pensation.
fwend OY acquaintance who mtght be In many of the laws legislative power is
inteyegteda calling his attention to the delegated to the Executive. Federal control is
_ 5 extended to matters outside the range of the
mgmbeyshlp blank OW the back P€*g6· commerce clause of the Constitution. The cen-
§ tralization of power in a single branch of the
j Federal Government is facilitated by provisions
j infringing upon constitutional guaranties of .
i liberty and the right of property. Laws enacted
and proposed, if effective in their extreme form,
would create machinery susceptible of use by a
despotism. In place of a democratic govern-
· ] ment, responsive to popular sentiment and divid-
. _ ing responsibilities among its own branches and
j with the states, there would be an autocratic
} government with authority centered in an Execu-
f tive who might regiment the lives and business
' affairs of the people at will. These tendencies
have received the condemnation of the courts.
Supporting evidence of a tendency toward
., autocracy is found in an insidious attack upon
‘ the courts which has followed decisions maintain-
i ing a proper balance between the authority of the
i legislative and executive branches and between
~ Federal and state sovereignty.
In brief, the record of the courts on important
I New Deal laws up to August, 1935, is as follows:
j NRA—The Supreme Court, by a unanimous
. 3
0 inion in the Schechter Case affecting Title I of . . _.
tli)e National Industrial Recovery Act, ruled that ity; g§O§O€SOga%§{p°}i1§€§;€ Sg;Sj;;qg1j;¤Lg;,§§g
OOO POOOOOOO Of OOOOOOOOO Of OOWOOS WOO WOIOOOO of intraitate milk business b license tog be un-
by an unconstitutional delegation of legislative my ,0. 1 N dy. . d t
ower to the Executive and that the principle of OOOO 1 O IOOO · OOOOO OOO OOIOIOOO O VOOOO ,0
gual Sovereignty was violated by an unCOnStitu_ various sections of the law have been rendered in
tional assumption of control over intrastate busi- , ;O;OOkD1OOOOO COOOOO6 Segleral }OOOOO1;§OdOOOOO OO'
s. The Court found it unnecessary to pass OO mg POOOOOO1Og OXOO OVO OOO. O Y 1OlOOO'
OOO . 1 t- f th due mcess clause tions being granted 1n many District Courts to
OpgI&,§§§ E1/gvlafs A%.FECg`ING INDUSTRY-_ restrain the collection of taxes pending a final
The new Labor Relations Act is expected to be * OOgO,;OI}f§§1O£X€,VgOOg§g,(%%O37TO§qlgOO §(O}ORICUL .
tested in the courts. Cases affecting the collec- , TURE Th T b C t 1 A ,0 d 1 A
tive bargaining section of the National Industrial * ,0 b D 1.% .O OOEO .OO OO EO dWO*Oi SO ?OOt
Recovery Act, including the Weirton Steel Com- (5) i Ow? ,gO I? OO,}_O;1OOéO,B,D O ga t lf EO,)
pany Case, in which the Federal District Court OOO huh OOdOO y' 1. O . O £,Od OO 11; ,0 .Ot
in Delaware ruled against the Government, were WOO O O OOgO OO O OO mg IO O O OOO OO OO
dismissed following the invalidation of the code g CQOOO OO TOXOOIO IOOO OO O*%OOd13VO1gOO OO O (OjOpO£
provisions of the Act in the Schechter Case. New ` ia tO.OO‘OOil.Wh1,0Oh IOO OOOO Ot (fg OEOOOOO OF;
cases involving sections of the National Indus- I O lg? W I? OVEVOLOO OOO; O 1 OO pO*OO OO O
trial Recovery Act which were not passed upon quggggn O) OOO.O 1 O ISOOO 1 YL th b. f
by the Supreme Court and which were continued th T _ OOIOQOOE O XOOEIO O O OPOOO OOOO O
in effect until April, 1936, are probable. Other F Od OOI;I’§OO,lOO t Oé Oy t .O AOOEOY WOOOT¥l?£V‘:g{ OO .O*
laws recently enacted or still under consideration CO OOLO f EHO 1 OO; gs OOO*lmO‘ Ol léOO§O
are certain to be challenged as to constitution- TO}; IO OEIOO O I? OW t OOOOUOP O O
amy. issue aw, a oug not se ting a points at
OIL—The Supreme Court in the Amazon ‘ .
Petroleum Corporation Case held the oil section GOLD CLAUOETTOO OOPOOIOO COOOO OO OOO
of the National Industrial Recovery Act to con- gO1O OOOOOO OOOOO> While OpOOlO1Og the OgOO.OO the
stitute an unconstitutional delegation of power COO? OOO OO OOOOgO*OO OOOVOOO OOOOOOOOO OOO1Og OOO
to the Executive. playrgent in gold} ruled tliat ittcould not repudiate
PUBLIC WORKS——The Supreme Court in a O OVOOOOOOO O OWO O 1gO OOOO
decision in the Parker Dam Case held unlawful i RAILROAD RETIREMENT OCT?`TOO OO'
the construction of dams by the Public Works POOOOO COOOO held OO.1O law OO be OO VOOOOOOOO Of
Administration without either specific authoriza- OOO OOOOLOO OO .OOO FOOOO Am¤¤dm<=¤’¤ WOOOO OO'
tion by the Congress or approval by army en- O OIFO O at OOVOOO OOOOOOOY may OOO OO taken
gineers. The Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincin- EO gy; due PIQCOSS O§.éO‘W OOO O*lOfO OIOOOO OOOOO
mi in ah Case gff€<=*>;,¤gg Lommc public Wks grim; $3%§§g.»2SQ’3§d.f’€E2°LS§m?n€fC5 .§§{Yg?
project eld t at t e overnment cannot con- ·
demn private property for slum clearance and l C FARlOO1§V[(;]OA§ORIUM »°>CT¢Th.¤ Supreme
low-cost housing since the land is not intended COOOO. O. O OO OO OO be OO VOOOOOOOO ef the
for a public use. A Federal District Court in OOOOOOOOOOO Oy takmg POYOOO property WIOOOOO
South Carolina in the Duke Power Company , {due process of law and without just compensa-
Case held the public works title of the National OOO
Industrial Recovery Act to be unconstitutional ' C THF dCOOE"`TOO OOPOOOEO
in its application to a grant and loan to a county OOOO O f OEOOOOO mv?} OOIOO the POOOOOOOO O
in that state for construction of a hydro-electric A OOOOOO O O O OOOO W1 OOOO E* H“mPO“?Y OOO
SySt€m_ 4 member of the Federal Trade Commission did
AAA——No case involving the validity of the OOO POOOOOO. OO O New DOOO IOW but WOO O1gO1O'
Agricultural Adjustment Act has been heard by · EOOO {O WOW OO OOO OOOOO toward Increased
the Supreme Court. The Circuit Court of Ap- I XOOOOIVO OOWOO
peals at Boston in the Hoosac Mills Corporation A
Ease held processing taxes to be unconstitutional , The NIRA
oth as an improper de egation of power and an iwhen the Su . .
· · - - preme Court invalidated the code
mvasmn Of the Outhomti Of the SOOOOO TOO Cui- sections of the National Industrial Recovery Act,
» . 5
about Cases pending in the 1OW€I· courts Were » €I1g8tg€Cl. lf]. II1l)€I`SlZ3ti]B COIDIIl€I`C»€. Those I`€lB,ll1OI1S
dismissed at the instance of the Department of atiljeeieeet re mtmtteetete ···· f
Justice. oger to er};actthSeot1on 7fa) §vas’notoo errherreeerherrred hy the eerrrheree
quootion of tho Violation of tho duo proooos mans? of thedConst1tut1on or it is unauthorized and
clause of the Fifth Amendment was raised in the $I§o°I;(;°oooi,'1imoStono or Scrap ooo is Shipped
case? the Court It was unnecessary to con- out into lI1t€I`Sl}8,i5€ COIIIIIIBTCB. What is Slllppiid out
Sider this point io View of the (ieoieion With are things entirely different from the raw materials
respect to the other two. Extracts from the shipped in. The finished products are produced by
decision are contained in Document No. 42 issued extended manufacturing operations involving me-
by the American Liberty League, t chanical, chemical and electrolytic processes. If de-
The dismissal of all pending cases affecting fenda¤t’s manufacturing plants and manufacturing
NRA codes made it impossible to obtain a ruling 5 epetetiees ere te he reeerdegsee rgegrrmerrg fer the
by the Supreme Court on the collective bargain- Eotggeteiglmgvitggegguueggturilo eioeizgtt eiofptgiz
ire eeeeeh ef the Terr- The eeheefrrre hereerhrhe ‘ Unitgo States would be onoonntgnttntn tilt control
nPi`oVieion» Seetroo 7(a), Wee not intfoived in the of the Federal Government. Such result has re-
Schechter Cttee- Section 7(ei PYoVided that all ceived the unqualified condemnation of the Supreme
codes should contain the collective bargaining Court."
formula set forth therein. With the invalidation
of codes, Section 7(a) lost its force. Other Laws
The questions involving the collective bargain-
ing section will arise again when the new Labor The Schechter Case decision has accentuated
Relations Act is tested in the courts. That Act the doubtful character of a number of laws
prescribes a collective bargaining formula for . already enacted and others under consideration
industry independent of codes. by the Congress. Such measures as the Bitumin-
ous Coal Bill and the Thirty—Hour Week Bill
, have been pressed in virtual defiance of the
The Weirton Cttee courts, while provisions of the Utility Holding
The ohtot onno affecting Section too not not gjgrgrgggecggg,;1g;u§;;g§g,§; e eerrr e ¤ re ne m ere e e are being carried on under this delegation of
commerce and the relations between the Weirton owol.
Steel Company and its employees do not affect . p `
such commerce. The court found that the com- - tt · to
pany union maintained in that particular plant · The Hot 011 Ceee
complied with the P}`0V1Si9hS of eeethm 7(a)- The Supreme Court by an 8-to-1 decision on
Judge Nrelde ih h1S de01S10h Said? January 7, 1935, in a case brought by the Pan-
"Defendant is not engaged in interstate commerce gme Reetmg %OmEeny’hiei1e Amtzen Petroleum
save to a negligible extent. In its relations to its Orpereimgn en pt erS’ e d Section gte). ef the
omoloyoos oo oooh with in Sootioo 7(oo it is not Nationa ndustrial Recovery Act to be invalid. ~
6 7
This section authorized the President to prohibit mgndatiou relied upon lacks the support of lexam-
the interstate transportation of petroleum and juarjou aud survey by Army officers and review, by
its products in excess of amounts permitted to be the Board of Engineer Ofiicers required by law.
produced or withdrawn from storage under state _ , . .
laws or regulations. The section provided a fine Fallawlhg rhe Supreme Qeurle S eleelerlgll lllle
of not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for not _ admrnistratlfm Prelileeed leglerarleré Ord Ce er
to exceed six months, or both, for violation of thorization of the Parker Darn and fall Jluciig
orders issued by the President. _ Dam lilmleere arr? rerrrrrgleezrvegrleeeglrnaley ereyllpgg Or
The Court held that the section was an un- made in connec on _ _ 1 rh . _
constitutional delegation of legislative power to R1‘0J€¤a<=d er-ei Government nee no constitutional authority
authority under the statute were necessarily void. l to oxororoo tho power of erruueul; domain except
Extracts from the decision are contained in Whoo property le to be taken for publio use. The
Document No. 42 issued by the American Liberty · dooroiorr omrrnod a Ending by Judge Charles I.
League Dawson of Louisville, Kentucky, that property
Th P k D C taken for slum bcrlearancerrarrd Itowf—f power of eminent domain. It' is nevertheless well
Engineers 0f ally Project that includes this dam. settled that this power belongs to the Government
This is a condition precedent to the recommenda- as an attribute of its sovereignty. Equally well
‘ tion required by the prbvisb- Failure ’¤¤ allege settled is it that the right een only be exercised
compliance warrants the conclusion that the recom- when the property is to be taken for a public use."
8 9
Th9 cvurt 3180 83id? include the public purposes of a state or county.
"The taking of one citizen’s property for the pur- The pOW€I‘S reserved to the states by the Consti-
pose of improving it and selling it or leasing it to tution have not been lost by acquiescence, it
another, or for the purpose of reducing unemploy- was ggggl-t,gd_
ment is not, in our opinion, within the scope of the Judge Watkins did not hold that there was an
Pewete detegeted to the G°Vemme“t· uliilawiiil delegation of legislative power but said
· · · · between Greenwood Count
On the question of the delegation of legislative t at t 6 contract . . . Y
authority to the Executive in violation of the ggistlgiciugllc (XVOYIEE Adugngsttttiitlog Yes (illtrtiti
principle of separation of the powers of govern- in compiiatilgenwitgtiheotgziiic tgmriis pcrogfamne
ment, the Court said: I ‘
"There is nothing in the Act under which the · ·
appellant is proceeding to serve as a guide to the Agrlcultural Adjustment Act
President in exercising the power conferred upon · ·
him, no requirements that his actions be conditioned Alithgugh tit}? Agfécuitolggal Tidtusiigetnt tact Wai
upon finding of fact made by himself or the Admin- ieee 6 On ay ’ ’ 1 S Va 1 1 Y as no
. istrator, no standard supplied with reference to low- een passed upon bY the Supreme Court' _
cost houses and Sium-ciea_mi,ce project ~ The enactment _of amendments tothe Act with
“Nothing is said as to what shall be deemed a 3 V19W to m99l5mg 0bJ901¤10T18 I`3189d by th9
slum or low-cost house or housing project, there is ¤ Court’s decision in the Schechter Case may have
no designation of city or county or state in which i the effect of p0stp01iiI1g further 8. decision OI1
such project shall be established, nor any standard ‘ Some of the Vito] features of the ieW_
giieettiiezhieg tgheoeegiggizggger is te determined Cases affeoting the validity of processing taxes
“N either is there any limitation or requirements ged 1i¤ii¤S€i)Sh¤vld regeh the Supreme
imposed upon the Administrator with reference to hour b IS a ' eeteteee it Verse to the Aqt
the spending of the money appropriated for these ave Ben rendered ,by Umted States Ctretut
purposes. All of this is left to the unfettered dis- Cvurts of APR0318 m both 0138898 of 03898.
cretion or choice of the President, through his Ad- Wh9th9Y the? milk 11091189 03898 30l?U3llY will be
ministrator, without any standard by which he is considered by the Supreme Court is particularly
to aot." doubtful in view of amendments tothe Act which
This case is one of those which is expected to a'¤.¤hSh heeneeez ettthettgh Ptevtdmg ter Seme-
be passed upon by the Supreme Court during the thmg Vary .S1m1te‘t under. the Hetme et eI`deI`S·
coming winter, gh9thPI`0098811('ig tax prlevlslons also are changed
. y _ e amen ments, t e attempt being made to
Another Public Works Case evoid the question of an urgzonstitutional delega-
_ _ 1on o e is ·
Among other eases affecting Title II of the existing pI§)C€iS;¥1§t%ii{WI?;t€S¥ enacting mw 13'W
g3l12g¤§gOt;1gmUSg§£p};;;0V§§Ya1i0tV1S giliteggvggg b In iriecgnt vsiieegs several hundred suits have
COUDJQY, South C3I`Qh¤3, 915 3]- Judg9 H9m`Y H- tli%;1toll<—i3ctiiegml\IifD;nJ§r0i1(f_i1ii;i;I3
Watkins of the United States District Court of tions have been issued pending a final determina-
the Western District of South Carolina on April tion of the Validity of the taxes
23, 1935, held lTitle II to be unconstitutional with °
respect to aut ority for a grant and loan to this _ - . .
county to enable it to construct a hydro-electric 1 Proccsslng Tax D€¤1S1¤¤S
system to operate in competition with private The outstanding decision affecting the validity
companies. Judge Watkins held that it was of processing taxes is that of the United States
not a valid exercise of Federal power under the * Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston. This court
commerce clause since. the operation of the in a 2—to—1 decision on July 16, 1935, held that
system would not be in interstate commerce. processing taxes are unconstitutional first be-
The court asserted that the statute could not cause the Congress did not seek to raise rewfenue
be sustained under the general welfare clause of but to control and regulate the production of
the revenue section of the Constitution, because agricultural commodities subject only to the con-
the purposesfor which the Congress may levy trol of the states; and, second, because the au-
taxes are l1m1ted to Federal purposes and do not thority vested in the Secretary of Agriculture to
10 11
. . . of the Act rental or benefit payments shall be made.
lmpose the taxes} and dctermme th? amount IS an The imposing of the taxes automatically follows.
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. nrphe issue is net, as the Government gontgndss
The case was that of the Hoosac Mills Corpora- Whether Congress can appropriate funds raised by
tion against the United States. general taxation for any purpose deemed by Con-
The decision rwas written by Judge Scott gress in furtherance of the ‘general welfare,’ but
Wilson and was concurred in by Judge George F. whether Congress has any power to control or regu-
Morris. Judge George H. Bingham disgentgdn late matters left ,to the states and lay a special tax
On the question of the purpose of the tax the tt"` that p“tp°S€‘
mutt Smdt With respect to the delegation of legislative
"We are not unmindful of the rules of construc- authority the court Satdt
tion that a presumption exists as to the validity of "The power to determine what the law shall be,
an ect cf C0¤SI`€SS» OY that if an act ie ¤¤S¤€Ptih1€ what property shall be affected by taxation or regu-
of two interpretations, that should be accepted lation, and what standards shall govern the admin-
which will uphold its validity. istrative officers in administering acts of Congress,
“It is clearly apparent, however, fromt the pro- - has never been held to be an administrative function.
visions of the Act that the main purpose of Con- "The power to impose a tax and to determine
c gress in its enactment was not to raise revenue but what property shall bear the tax can only be de-
to ·control and regulate the production of what is I termined by the legislative department of the Gov-
termed the basic products of agriculture, in order to ernment. " If Congress undertakes to lay down a
establish and maintain a balance between the pro- _ guide for an administrative officer to follow in carry-
duction and consumption of such commodities, which ` ing out its mandates, it must be by an intelligible
Congress rea.lized could not in any event be accom- and reasonably definite standard. Adkins v. Chil-
plished by compulsory regulation of the production dren’s Hospital, 261 U. S. 525; Hampton & Co. v.
of agricultural products, and it sought to avoid the United States, Supra, p. 409.
objection that it was interfering with matters solely "The balance between production and consump-
within the control of the states themselves by mak- tion of certain commodities, or the equalizing of the
ing the restriction of production voluntary, by basing purchasing power thereof between certain widely
the Act on the power of Congress to regulate inter- separated periods alone forms no such standard ....
state commerce, on its power to tax to provide for "If Congress has the power to control or regulate
the general welfare of the United States, and by the production of agricultural products within the
declaring that in the acute economic emergency several states, and assess a tax on their processing
that exists transactions in agricultural commodities or sale for that purpose, it is obviously legislative in
have become affected with a public interest .... character. Query, then, has Congress set up any
"The Government contends that Congress does definite standard for the Secretary’s action in making
not seek by the Act to interfere with the states' rental or benefit payments to producers and thereby
control over agriculture, inasmuch as the reduction imposing a processing tax?
of acreage and of production of either of the basic A "We find no definite, intelligible standard set up
agricultural products depends on voluntary agree- in the Act for determining when the Secretary shall
ments by the producers and the processing and floor pay rental or benefit. payments in order to reduce
taxes depend on the execution of such agreements production of any particular commodity except his
to reduce production, citing Massachusetts v. own judgment as to what will effectuate the purpose
Mellon, 262 U. S. 447; but it is clear, we think, under of the Act.
the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the “The declaration of emergency in the Agricultural
Schechter Poultry Corporation Case decided on May Adjustment Act contains no such standard for the
27, 1935, that Congress at the outset has attempted Secretary of Agriculture to follow in entering into
to invade a field over which it has no control, since ’ restrictive agreements with producers of agricultural
its obvious purpose, viz., to control or regulate the J PY¤dU€'tS- It is m€¤`€lY 3 Sttttemeht cf conditions
production of agricultural products in the several A which in the judgment of C011g1‘eSS warranted legisla-
states by the methods adopted in this Act, is beyond l tiVe &<¤’ti011·”
the power of Congress; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 ‘ _ _ »
U_ S_ 46; Flint V, Stone Tracy Company, 220 U_ S_ Th€ Cl€C1S1OI1 of `l`»l'1€ ClI`Cl1ll3 COl1I'l`r of App€2.lS
107. was a reversal of the ruling of the District Court
“The processing and H00r taxes are not dependent Which, however, was rendered several months in
cn the executrcn cf agreements tc reduee acreage advance of the decision of the Supreme Court in
og péoduetion ahilnee but en tléetdetergliinattlaon lby the Schechter Case
t e ecre ary wi ou any oun a ion 0 er an is · · · . .
own opinion that the existing economic emergency C Anzongdnumerous i"’°‘S‘°’?S m F€d€m‘l.D1StHct
demands that to accomplish the declared purpose our S 3 Verse tc t 6 Agmculturat Adiustment
Aell in iniunellien Suits applying to processing "I do not think that the tax is lev1ed for a Gov-
taxes, is one by Judge William H. Kirkpatrick in lemment purpese It IS not e governmental purpose
. . . 0 take money from the pocket of John Brown and
the Ensnnnn_Dnnnn’@ nf Pnnnnrlvnnn Jnden put it in the pocket of John Smith, sm is it a gov-
K1I`l