The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-08-18
HAWAIIAN SUGAR
. CONTROL WILL
FACE TEST

Rumblings of discomfort in the
sugar industry over control provi-
Sions of the Jones-Costigan law
suddenly broke into the open
yesterday when the Hawaiian
Sugar Planters Association filed
suit to test the acts constitu-
tionality.
The suit was filed in District
of Columbia Supreme Court. 1t
seeks to enjoin Secretary of Agri-
culture wallace from enforcing
marketing and quota provisions
of the law as they apply to
Hawaii.
Conferences through which
Wallace and officials of the
sugar division of the Agriculture
Adjustment Administration hoped
to dissuade the association, were
held just before the suit was
filed.
MARX tlrSC lest
The action marks the first con.
crete move by the industry to
test the control act. Various
groups have, from time to time,
however, expressed dissatisfaction
with control and quota provi-
Sions.
The association contended Ha-
wall, though an integral part of
territorial United States, is dis
eliminated against in application
of the law. The act fixes def
mite quotas for both cane and
beet sugar produced in the
United States but left the fixing
of quotas for Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, Cuba, the Virgin Islands
and the Philippines to the Secre-
tary Of Agriculture.
Below Demands
Wallace allotted Hawaii 916,550
short tons for mainland market
ing. This is considerably short
of the original 975,000 tons Ha-
waiian planters demanded in a
sterilization agreement they ne
gotiated but which Wallace re-
fused to approve.
Associate Justice Joseph w. Cox
cited Government officials to ap-
pear September 4 to show cause
why an Injunction should not be
granted.
Burden Of the complaint was
that the sugar law Greats Hawaii
like a foreign country Thirty
seven companies signed the bill.
They represented practically all
Of the Hawaiian industry.
Called Legislative
The complaint averred that
powers delegated to Wallace by
the bill "are legislative in nature
and are such as can be exercised
only by the legislative branch Of
the Government"
That raised the constitutional
issue. The petition related:
Specific provisions of the
sugar act are, as they relate to
Hawaii, denials and impair
ments of the rights, privileges
and immunitieS of the citizens
of Hawaii" 1t added that such
provisions unfairly and illegally
impose restrictions, limitations
and burdens upon the use and
property Of these compliments
not imposed upon the prop
ties Of citizens Of other integral
parts of the United States"
FEAR FOR RIGHTS
Taking sharp issue with the al.
legged classification of Hawaii with
Cuba and other nations as a for
eign country, the bill said that
''such provisions deny to the citi-
ZenS of Hawaii and these COM
plainantS the rights and immuni-
ties guaranteed to them under the
Constitution, the resolution of an
nexation and the Hawaiian Or
ganic act" It charged further that
under these provisions properties
of the compliments could be
seized without due process of law
and without just compensation"
The suit occasioned no surprise
among AAA and Agriculture De-
partment officials. There had
been reports one Of the major
planters would attack the law on
constitutional grounds. One AAA
official said:
1.-THE Government believes
the Hawaiian group is entitled
to its day in court, if it DESIRES"