Evening star., 1935-10-16
The A. A. A. Cases.

An early decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States on the constl-
tutiOnality of the A. A A. and its proc
essing taxes is becoming increasingly i'm
perative. The administration, which re-
lies on these taxes to pay the farmers
for curtailing crops; the manufacturers
who are compelled to pay the taxes; the
farmers who are hopeful Of receiving
their Government checks for not pro-
ducing foodstuffs, and the consumers
who pay higher prices for many neces-
sites because of the processing taxes, all
are on tenterhooks. They will continue
to be disturbed and uncertain until this
question is determined.
Section 9 of Title I of the agricultural
adjustment act says: ITO obtain revenue
for extraordinary expenses incurred by
reason of the national economic emer-
gency there shall be levied processing
taxes as hereinafter provided" Whether
the payments to the farmers by the
Government could be made out of other
Government funds may be questioned.
At any rate, with a plethora of suits
brought by the professors and injunc-
tions granted against the collection OF
the processing taxes the revenue from
the taxes has dropped greatly. For ex-
ample, the collections made in July, 1884,
amounted to 43,013,4 ,496, as compared to
collections in July Of this year totaling
only s15,364, ,40l. The amendments to
the A. A. A., written into law by Con-
press lust before it adjourned, and ap-
proved by the President August "a, 1885,
specifically appropriates funds equivalent
to the proceeds of all processing taxes
to make the payments to the farmers
for compliance with the A. A. A. program.
If the decision of the Supreme Court
should be so sweeping in character as to
declare that even the A. A. A. as amended
in the act of August "a last is not con-
stitutional there will be nothing Tor the
administration to do but to find money
to pay the farmers for compliance in the
program from other sources than the
processing taxes. That may mean add1-
tional general taxes, excise taxes, sales
taxes or what not. The President has
already said that such new taxes may
become necessary. New taxes OF that
character are not likely to be popular.
If no new taxes are levied, then the
Government deficits will mount by hun
dreds of millions of dollars.
Beyond the tax problem involved, how
ever, is the issue of the constitutionality
of the New Deal. The agricultural ad-
justment act was the twin of the N. R. A,
creating the basis of the whole New Deal
structure. The Supreme Court already
has knocked the props from under the
N. R. A. If it takes a similar view OF
the A. A. A. and holds it unconstitutional,
the New Dealers will have to determine
whether they wish to seek a conStitu-
tional amendment to legalize their plans,
or abandon them, or seek to rewrite them
within the terms of the Constitution
as it now stands and Is interpreted by
the highest court. The issue may easily
be precipitated into the national political
campaign next year. Indeed, it will be
strange if such is not the case.
Quite naturally, the supporters of the
A. A. A. are hoping that the law, as
amended in the last session of Congress,
will be, upheld by the courts. The amend
ments were written in the light Of the
N. r. A. decision of the Supreme Court
and were designed to cure the original
act. 1t will require longer time for the
new act to reach the court, probably
more time than would permit of final
decision prior to the presidential cam
paign of 1896.