Evening star., 1936-01-12

cover in Federal district courts or
the Court of Claims. Several suits
already have been brought and many
more are planned. In addition, the
maze of litigation may be complicated
bv suits against processors-who di-
rectly paid the taxes-brought by those
who have bought goods from them.
If the provision is upheld, the Gov
ernment claims professors cannot re-
cover until proof is presented that they
bore the tax expense out of their own
pockets. What proportion OF the total
payment would have to be refunded in
that event is uncertain.
S2OO, 100000 Impounded.
Approximately 5000, 100000 in taxes
assessed before last Mondays ruling
has been impounded in Federal courts
pending action by the Supreme Court.
Government Spokesmen say that II the
court decides the rice millers were en-
titled to an injunction, this amount
would be returned to the professors.
If an injunction is denied, it is con-
tended the $2oO,000,0oO would be
turned into the Treasury to take its
place with what remains of the 81 ,000,-
100000 already collected.
Frank j. Wideman, Assistant At
torney General, who argued the rice
case in the Supreme Court, said the
provision requiring proof that the tax
was not passed on to others was all
that remained of the A. A. A. amend
ments after the ruling last Monday
that farm program was unconstl-
tutional.
The Supreme Court granted the rice
millers temporary injunction, pend
ing final decision, over the protest Of
Justices Stone, Cardozo and Brandeis.
They are the ones who delivered the
dissenting A. A. A. opinion.
Injunctions previously had been re-
fused by Federal District Court and
the Court of Appeals at New Orleans.
Sale Of Power Involved.
The question involved in the T. v.
A. case is whether the Government
can sell surplus electricity generated
in projects intended primarily to aid
carrx out some war purposes.
In the suit against T. v. A., pre-
ferred stockholders of the Alabama
Power Co., the Government contended
1t had a right to sell electricity gen.
Grated by a by-product in its far
reaching Tennessee Valley develop
ment program. 1t won in the Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
If the Government should lose the
suit, construction of the dams and
other definitely Federal activities
would not be affected. The work
could go ahead. Only sale of the
power would be involved.
The attack on the Bankhead law
was filed by Lee Moor, Texas planter
who sought to compel the Texas &
New Orleans Railroad to transport
his cotton without tags attached to
show he had complied with the act
Lower courts dismissed his suit.
The legislation was intended to cur
tail production by imposing high
toA OAl NOVGOll SlllLlCO AL ChCCoS VI u
quota fixed by the Secretary of Agri-
culture.
Bankhead Abandons Hope.
Even Senator Bankhead, Democrat
of Alabama, author of the measure,
has abandoned hope it would be up
held. The Supreme Court, in its A.
A. A. opinion, referred to the legis-
lation as follows, after referring to
the "coercive purpose and intent" of
the A. A. A. law:
"It is pointed out that because
there still remained a minority whom
the rental and benefit payments were
insufficient to induce to surrender
their independence of action, the
Congress has gone further, and In
the Bankhead cotton act used the tax
ing power in a more directly nina
tory fashion to compel submission.
This progression only serves more
fully to expose the coercive purpose of
the so-called tax imposed by the pres
ent act"