The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1919-04-26
Attorney General Cannot
Give Opinions to Private
Organizations
THE GROWERS MUST
TRY RESTRICTION
The Courts Then Can Pass Upon the
Legality of Their Combine If It Is
Observation-Disclosures of Agricul-
ture Appealed to.

WASHINGTON, April 26-Cotton
growers in the Southern states who sought |
an opinion from the attorney -general of
the United States upon the legality of
their plan to reduce cotton acreage, have
been informed that such an opinion can
not be given by the attorney general, I'M
der the law. They must depend upon pri.
vate counsel for their legal guidance.
When it was announced, several weeks
ago, that the growers had reached an
agreement to reduce cotton acreage, as
a means of maintaining the price of cot
ton through smaller production. it was
charged by Henry Allen, governor of Kan
sas, that the agreement violated the Sher-
man antitrust law. j. S Wannamaker
chairman of the South Carolina Cotton
Growers, association, took notice of this
| charge by asking for an opinion from the
attorney general.
The department of Justice replied to
Mr.. Wannamaker, as it replies to all in
qurles OF similar nature from private
citizens or organizations, that the attor-
ney general is required by law to give
| opinions only to heads of government de-
partments. Ihereupon Mr. Wannamaker
asked David +. Houston, secretary of agri-
culture, to obtain an opinion from the
Encouragement. Mr.. Houston aeceded TO
TINS request, as courtesy to the cotton
1 growers. he received a reply from A
Mitchell Palmer, encouragement, that ar
| opinion could be given only If the issue
was one which came within the province
OF the department of agriculture As the
question OF acreage IS not subject to the
control of the department of agriculture.
the opinion could not be given.
The cotton growers, therefore, must 60
ahead with their plans for controlling the
production of cotton without approval or
tdlsapproval of the department of Justice
The courts will have to settle the question
OF the legality of their agreement If any.
one chooses to challenge il. The depart.
ment of justice, of course, in this as in
any other effort to control production,
| would be free to take such action as may
DC determined upon. This is a bridge
however, which no one is trying to cross
before reaching it
Throughout the war, the department oil
agriculture has tried to interest cotton
growers IN diversified crops, which, it is
pointed out, effects a reduction in cotton
; acreage. For years, the farmers in the
South specialized so exclusively upon cot
ton that they had to buy feed for then
stock in the North, whereas. the depart
ment of agriculture has recommended that
the Southern farmer grow more of this
feed. A rotation of crops, it was said
would benefit the cotton lands, which ars
being exhausted by continuous planting Of
one crop.
The high prices of feed during the wal
, did cause the South to raise much more
corn and hay, but cotton brought record
tprices because of the demand for it il
war industries. Now the farmers desire
. to prevent cotton from going to pre-wal
} prices, which, they say, were too low
and they have held many meetings Il
/ reach an agreement an acreage.