Evening star., 1936-01-13
Decision

CONTINUED From First Page)
istration foe, will give the court
another opportunity to rule on it.
The nine justices may decide next
Monday whether the New Deals power
''yardstick" policy, as pursued in the
vast Tennessee Valley Authority, is
constitutional.
In the rice millers' opinion. read by
Justice Roberts, the court held the
changes made by the new A. A. A.
law enacted at the last session Of Con-
gress did not "cure the infirmities of
the original act" which it held un-
constitutional last week.
Deny "True Tax"
1.-THE exaction still lacked the quail
fly of true tax" the court said. 1T
remains a means for effectuating the
regulation of agriculture. production
. matter not within the powers of
Congress"
In deciding that impounded taxes
must be returned, the court said:
I'VE have no occasion to discuss
or decide whether section 81 Cd
affords an adequate remedy at law.
AS yet, the petitioner has not paid
the taxes to the respondents, and, in
view of the decision in the Butler
"a. A. A. case, hereafter cannot be
required so to do.
IF the respondent should now at
tempt to collect the tax by distraint
he would be trespasser. The decree
of the District Court will be vacated
and appropriate order entered direct
ing the repayment to the petitioner
of the funds impounded and
the cause remanded to the District
Court for the entry of a decree en-
joining selection of the assailed ex-
action. A similar disposition will be
made of the companion cases."
Section 21 d Provisions.
The section 81 Cd referred to by
the court would prohibit refunds of
the processing taxes already paid to
the Government, unless the taxpayer
could show that he had not passed
the tax on to others.
Due to intricacies of the decision,
administration officials deferred COM
ment pending study.
Agriculture Department officials dis
played only mild interest in the meet
ing of the court. However, wires to
the court building were kept open and
Secretary Wallace and Administrator
Chester C. Davis were informed
promptly of the rulings.
A. A. A. attorneys began studying
reports of the decisions in an effort
to interpret them and to determine
what effect, if any. they might have
on the new farm program.
The Government has until January
20 to answer the suit filed by Tai
n1adge against the Bankhead act.
The rice millers had contended the
processing levy was not real tax for
revenue. but was an attempt to regu-
late the price at which rice was sold
in interstate commerce. 49,
; Tracing Tax Held Impossible.
They insisted they could not prove
who bore the expense of the processing
levy. They said in their business the
various lots Of rice were handled to-
Eether and it could not be ascertained
what happened to the individual con-
Signment.
[. The Government claimed the millers
should pay first and litigate later"
It asserted suits for injunctions against
taxes were barred by Federal statutes
and by the A. A. A. amendments.
/ The Federal District Court and the
Circuit Court of Appeals at New Or
Jeans agreed with the Government
Ind dismissed the millers' petitions.
The courts said they we're without
jurisdiction to enjoin the tax collec-
tion.
. In agreeing to review the dispute,
the Supreme Court granted a tempo
rary injunction to continue until its
final ruling. Justices Brandeis. Stone
and Cardoza dissented from the re-
view
Rice collections to October totaled
kl53,974. It was expected they would
have been $12.900O00 by next June 30.