The Washington times., 1935-06-20

must laws.
Lewis HAney He will count
on giving enough money to vari-
Gus special classes to make them
want these laws. Then he figures
that when his laws are declared
unconstitutional, the special bene-
fits being received will lead these
classes to demand a change in the
Constitution. Thus he will pass
the buck!
Meanwhile, various ones of his
"yes men" will continue to go
around making speeches designed
to throw upon the Constitution
the blame for his failure to bring
recovery. He could stop them
but he won't. (He could attack
the Constitution himself, but he
won't-until it seems politically
safer to do SOL
The new A.A.A. bill has been
rammed through the House
without a record of the vote.
This will give MIR. Roosevelt
many millions of dollars OF
processing tax money to distrib-
ute among farmers between
now and November 1886. land
farmers are human.)
The tax provision has been
fixed so that Congress is now
supposed to determine the
amount, thus getting around the
objection of delegating legislative
functions. Suits to recover Illegally
collected processing taxes are
prohibited.
OF course the words defin-
ing interstate commerce" are
changed. The language, now
makes anything which directly
burdens, obstructs, or affects"
interstate commerce, subject to
that act.
But these subterfuges and con-
misunderstanding devices are
going to be resisted. Already In
certain cases involving the licens-
ing power, the power Of the
government to regulate milk
prices has been denied. The
Amazon Petroleum case shows
the Supreme Courts attitude, to
say nothing of the Schechter
case.
Above all, the processing tax
payers are striking-both the
professors and the consumers.
The Louisville Provision Com
pany is suing in the Federal
courts to enjoin the collector or
internal revenue from collecting.
Six meat packers in Philadelphia
have filed suit in their Federal
district court and the judge has
issued o restraining order pend
ing a hearing. The arguments
in these cases run as follows:
I. These taxes" are not taxes
at all, as defined by law. but
are bounties paid to farmers for
not raising hogs, etc. They are
not levied for the purpose OF pay
ing the public debt, Of public de-
tense. or of public welfare"
2. They are class legislation.
3. The business Of the com"
panies is wholly or largely 1ntra'
state.
4. The "taxes" are so high IS
to be unreasonable, and can't
be passed on to consumers who
are rebelling against high prices.
These cases will come to a head
next fall. They will again raise
the issue of Federal control over
"intra-State Commerce. The use
of the power to tax, as q means OF
Federal control over business, will
also come up.
Thus the MIRA decision Is not
being allowed to decide. The
New Dealers want more power
in One way or another!
We should especially not be
misled by the false argument
that the issue involved In these
attempts to regiment the na-
tons business, is like that Of
prohibition, or slavery, or crime
prevention. There Is Q big and
vital difference. Prohibition
raised moral questions. A per
son, rightly or wrongly, might
ask Federal intervention in the
case of liquor or narcotics on
grounds very different from
those involved in the economic
control over the cotton or pea
nut businesses.
Lincoln led the Federal Gov
eminent against slavery and
against secession" But neither
is an issue now, and Lincoln
would have been the last to favor
the control of hog raising or
cotton prices by the Federal Gov
eminent.
The Omen" may we'll pursue
kidnapers across State lines. Does
that have any bearing on the
issue Of raising meat prices in
order to pay bounties TO hog
farmers? You can't argue that
because the Federal Government
may help stamp out crime, it
should therefore stamp out in