White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1934-12-27
Judge Hawkins
Holds State AAA
Is Constitutional
Assessment For Advertising
Purposes Ruled Out,
However

In decision handed down Friday,
Judge A. w. Hawkins Of the Yakima
county superior court held that the
state agricultural adjustment act is
constitutional and that agriculture is
subject to control and regulation under
the police power of the state, accord
ing to press reports from Yakima.
Judge Hawkins decision is the fourth
one in the state upholding the con-
stitutionality of the agricultural adj
justment act; the milk code and the
melon and tomato code having been
upheld in superior courts of the state
while the apple code had previously
been upheld by the Thurston county
superior court. The latest action in
volving the state AAA had been
brought by Director Of Agriculture w.
j. Robinson in his suit to enjoin 10
principal Yakima valley fruit shippers
from doing business in alleged viola
ton of the regulations promulgated
under the act.
It is understood that the court find
ing means that all phases of the code
become effective Immediately and that
if an appeal is. taken to the supreme
court such action will not act as a
stay on code activity.
In unfolding the act, the marketing
agreement and it's regulations, Judge
Hawkins held that:
1. Agriculture is subject to regula-
lions and control under the police pow
er of the state;
q The legislature is within it's pow
ers to require a license of business;
8. The state has the right to fix
prices; and
4. Power to regulate includes power
to impose reasonable charges to raise
money to cover expenses of adninistra-
ton of the act.
While deciding that the state agri-
cultural act and the deciduous tree
fruit marketing agreement was con-
stitutional, Judge Hawkins ruled, how
ever, that the director Of agriculture
has no power to collect from the in
dustry an assessment for the purpose
of advertising the industry's products
Under the marketing agreement, a
part of the fund collected by the one
cent per box assessment on apple anc
pear growers was to have been usec
for advertising. This is the only par1
of the regulation to which the Thirteen
defendants, and the seventeen Yakima
valley growers who interviewed in thu
suit, did not object.
In handing down his opinion, say
the Yakima Herald Judge Hawkins
stated:
g. This case must and shoult
be decided not upon the basis OF VIVA
are the proper functions Of govern
ment. or whether this or that theor.
is the better for the nation or tn
state and the inhabitants thereof, bu
upon the determination Of whethe
that which has been done is permits
sable under the constitution of tn
United States and the constitution Q
this state.
II think the deeply ingrained OBJ
lection to legislation of this kind
that it deprives those affected OF tn
free will to manage their own bushes
and that the business may not be, an
in fact is not, as profitable to ther
under such regulation as it otherwis
would be.
"While one may appreciate this feel
ing, that can be no excuse to hold tn
legislation unconstitutional and inva]
i'd. In fact, a showing that the regu
lation might even destroy bushes
is not a sufficient reason"
The court decision on the constitr
tionality of the apple code has bee
eagerly awaited here, for it was in tn
valley that the movement for a grow
ers code for the apple and pear II
dustry was initiated, and it was large
through the efforts of local men TIN
the code was adopted.