Evening star., 1935-07-17
ENTIRE EA.A.A.HAN.
BELIEVED DOOMED
Court Verdict on Process
Tax CenterS Attention
on DebentureS.
nv DAVID LAWRENCE.

ton.
This decision was really no sur
prise to anybody. not even the New
Dealers themselves, who have been
busy, ever since the Schechter case
was decided in May, trying to re-
write the A. A. A. so as to make the
taxes appear valid.
But the amendments pending be-
fore the Senate, which have already
passed the House, are as hagrantly
unconstitutional as the original law,
and the new decision also applies in
cidentally to the Guffey' coal bill,
which Mr. Roosevelt demanded OF
Congress recently should be passed
irrespective of constitutionality.
Congress alone can raise revenues
by taxation and the purpose of the
taxes must be to support the Govern
ment as a whole.
Aids Special Group.
The processing taxes, however, have
as their main purpose the control OF
agricultural production and they are
expended as a subsidy to a special
group; namely, the farmers. 1t may
be, of course, that the New Deal plan
for stabilizing agriculture is desired by
the American people. but the Constl-
tuition does not provide for it. And
the only way for the Executive to
get such power is for the Constitu-
ton to be amended, in which case
the American people of all classes,
consumers as well as producers. will
decide whether they want the Treas
ury levying a tax on consumers OF
food products, the proceeds to be dis
bursed to farm producers while In
creasing the cost of living generally
to all consumers.
AS pointed out in these dispatches
yesterday, before it was known that
the Circuit Court of Appeals had
handed down its decision at Boston,
the processing taxes are really q levy
on a group of people, poor people espe-
ciaIly, for the benefit of farmer group
who would be much better on If their
Government enabled them to produce
more and sell it at export In such a
way that, if a subsidy were necessary.
the cost would be borne by those
people best able to bear it.
The advocates of the so-cailed export
debenture plan as an alternative to
the processing taxes are increasing,
and it is probable that the processing
taxes are in for some vigorous opposi-
ton as the retail sellers Of farm COM
rnodities find an increased resistance
by the consumer to the higher prices.
For there is no sound way to pay the
processing tax except to tack most Of
1t onto the consumer.
Called lOe-to-1 Shot.
The amazing thing is that anybody
in the New Deal law departments
should have thought the processing
tax could ever be upheld. The state
ment of the constitutional principle
given by the Circuit Court Of Appeals
in Boston is so clearly in line with
Supreme Court opinions that it is a
1e0-to-1 shot the Boston decision will
be upheld when the case comes up
next Autumn or Winter.
Here is the essential point in the
Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and
it can be read with the Gudey coal
bill in mind and its weird plan Of tax
alton for purposes of control:
THE power of Congress to regulate
Interstate Commerce does not auth
orize it to do so by taxing products
either of agriculture or industry be-
fore they enter interstate commerce,
or otherwise to control their produc-
ton merely because their production
may indirectly affect interstate COM
merce.
THE issue is not as the Govern
ment contended, whether Congress
can appropriate funds for any rr-
pose deemed by Congress IN further
ance of the general welfare but
whether Congress has any power to
control or regulate matters left to
the State anC lay special tax for
that purpose"
Unwarranted Delegation.
Since Congress cannot delegate TO
cabinet officer power that it does not
originally possess, the processing tax
has been rejected as an unwarranted
delegation of power. But even Il the
power were resident in Congress to
delegate the tax-making machinery,
standards and limits would have to
be set up to guard against arbitrary
and cap1icious action by Govern
ment department, and no such stand
ards were found by the court to exist
in the A. A. A.
The Supreme Court is making quite
q point of this idea of Standards"
whereby Congress points ont how the
department to which it delegates a
power lawfully may function. But
ever since the decision by the Su-
preme Court in the hot oil" case in
January. 1885, the weakness of the
New Deal laws in this respect has
been apparent.
The courts plainly are not In
sympathy with Government by sub
terfuge or the usurpation of power by
either Congress or the executive branch
of the Government If the administra-
tion wants dictatorial powers, these
must be obtained In the lawful way
that the Constitution itself prescribes.
Washington QuOted.
In this connection, the words of
George Washington In his farewell
address are being quoted hereabouts aS
strangely prophetic of what the New
Deal brain tHusters are disregarding;
IF, n the opinion Of the people,
the distribution or modification of the
constitutional powers be in amy par
ticular wrong, let 1t be corrected by
an amendment in the way which the
Constitution designates.
But let there be no change by
usurpatiun; for though this, in one
instance, may be the instrument of
good, it is the customary weapon by
which free governments ARE destroyed"
The New Deal exponents think the
various decisions against New Deal
laws wiH develop sentiment for q con-
StftaItiosal amendment. Maybe they