Evening star., 1936-01-07

ments should be made with respect
to cotton; that the marketing year
for that commodity was to begin
August /, 1888, and calculated and
fixed the rates Of processing and floor
taxes on cotton in accordance with
the terms of the act.
The United States presented claim
to the respondents as receivers Of the
Hoosac Mills Corp. for processing and
floor taxes on cotton levied under Sec
tions and Is Of the act. The re-
ceiverS recommended that the claim
be disallowed. The District Court
found the taxes valid and ordered
them paid. Upon appeal the Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the order.
The Judgment under review was Ell
tered prior to the adoption of the
amending act of August "a, 1885, and
We are therefore concerned only with
the original act.
First. At the outset the United
States contends that the respondents
have no standing to question the
validity Of the tax The position Is
that the act is merely a revenue meas
ure levying an excise upon the ac-
tivity Of processing cotton-a proper
subject for the imposition Of such a
tax-the proceeds of which go into
the Federal Treasury and thus be-
come available for appropriation for
any purpose. 1t is said that what
the respondents are endeavoring to
do is to challenge the intended use
OF the money pursuant to congress
Sional appropriation when, by con-
feSsion. that money will have become
the property of the Government and
the taxpayer will no longer have any
interest in it. Massachusetts VS.. Mel
lon, 262, United States 447, is claimed
to foreclose litigation by the respond
entS or other taxpayers. as such, look
ing to restraint Of the expenditure
Of Government funds. That case
might be an authority in the petit
TONERS favor if we were here con-
cerned merely with a suit by a tax
payer to restrain the expenditure Of
the public moneys. 1t was there held
that a taxpayer of the United States
may not question expenditures from
its Treasury on the ground that the
alleged unlawful diversion will de-
plete the public funds and thus in
crease the burden of future taxation.
Obviously the asserted interest of a
taxpayer in the Federal Government s
funds and the supposed increase of the
future burden of taxation is minute
and indeterminable. But here the
respondents who are called upon to
pay moneys as taxes, resist the exac-
ton as step in an unauthorized
plan. This circumstance clearly dis
tinguishes the case. The Government
in substance and effect asks us to
separate the agricultural adjustment
act into two statutes, the one levy
ing an excise on professors Of certain
commodities, the other appropriating
the public moneys Independently Of
the first. Passing the novel sugges-
ton that two statutes enacted as parts
of a single scheme should be tested
as if they were distinct and unre-
lated. we think the legislation now
before us Is not susceptible OF such
separation and treatment.
Farm Purchasing Power
Increase Objective.
The tax can only be sustained by
ignoring the avowed purpose and ope--
alton of the act and holding it a
measure merely laying an excise upon
professors to raise revenue for the
support of Government. Beyond cavil
the sole object of the legislation is to
restore the purchasing power of agri-
cultural products to parity with that
prevailing in an earlier day; to take
money from the professor and bestow
it upon farmers who win reduce their
acreage for the accomplishment of
the proposed end and, meanwhile, to
aid these farmers during the period
required to bring the prices OF their
crops to the desired level.
The tax plays an indispensable part
in the plan of regulation. As stated
by the agricultural adjustment admin
iStrator, it is "the heart of the law;
a means of accomplishing one or both
of two things intended to help farm
ers attain parity prices and purchas-
ing power" A tax automatically goes
into effect for a commodity when the
Secretary of Agriculture determines
that rental or benefit payments are
to be made for reduction of produc-
ton of that commodity. The tax is
to cease when rental or benefit pay
ments cease. The rate is fixed with
the purpose of bringing about CROP
reduction and price-raising. It is 70
equal the difference between the cur
rent average farm price" and fair
exchange value''
It may be altered to such amount as
will prevent accumulation of surplus
stocks. If the Secretary finds the
policy of the act will not be promoted
by the levy of the tax for a given
commodity. he may exempt it. (Sec-
tion I'D The whole revenue from
control; none of 1t is made available
for general governmental use. The
entire agricultural adjustment program
embodied in title I of the act Is to
become imperative when, in the judg-
ment of the President, the national
economic emergency ends: and as to
any commodity he may terminate the
provisions Of the law, if he finds them
no longer requisite to carrying out the
declared policy with respect to such
commodity. (Section 13)
Statutes Aim Is Foreign
to Revenue Procurement.
The statute not only avows an aim
foreign to the procurement of revenue
for the support of Government, but
by its operation shows the exaction
laid upon professors to be the neces-
sary means for the intended control
OF agricultural production.
In these aspects the tax, so-called,
closely resembles that laid by the act
of August 3, 1882, entitled IAN act to
regulate immigration, which came
before this court in the head money
cases, 112 U. S. $50. The statute d.
rected that there should be levied, COL
leCted and maid q dIltv of Sn copte Gov