Evening star., 1936-01-07

that we should direct our attention
to the pivot on which the decision OF
the court is made to turn. 1t is that
q levy unquestionably within the tax
ing power of Congress may be treated
as invalid because it is step in
plan to regulate agricultural produc-
ton and is thus forbidden infringe
ment of State power The levy is not
any the less an exercise of taxing
power because it is intended to de-
fray an expenditure for the general
welfare, rather than for some other
support of Government. Nor is the
levy and collection of the tax pointed
to as effecting the regulation. While
all Federal taxes inevitably have some
influence on the internal economy Of
the States, it is not contended that
the levy of a processing tax upon
manufacturers using agricultural prod
ucts as raw material has any per-
ceptible regulatory effect upon either
their production or manufacture. The
tax is unlike the penalties which were
held invalid in the child labor tax
case, 259, U. S. 20; in Hill vs. Wallace,
259. U. S. A; in Linder VS.. United
States, 268, U. S. s. II, and in United
States VS.. Constantine, decided De-
cember H. 1885, because they we're
themselves the instruments of regula-
tion by virtue of their coercive effect
on matters left to the control of the
States. Here regulation, if any there
T. L,,
but by the method by which its pro-
ceeds are expended, and would equally
be accomplished by any like use of
public funds, regardless of their
source.
The method may be simply stated
Out of the available fund payments
are made to such farmers as are will
ing to curtail their productive acreage,
who, in fact, do so and who in advance
have filed their written undertaking to
do so with the Secretary of Agriculture
In saying that this method of spend
ing public moneys is an invasion of the
reserved powers of the States, the court
does not assert that the expenditure of
public funds to promote the general
welfare Is not substantive power spe-
cifically delegated to the National Gov
eminent, as Hamilton and Story pro-
nounced it to be. It does not deny that
the expenditure of funds for the bene-
flt OF farmers and in aid of program
OF curtailment of production of agri-
cultural products, and thus of a sup
posedly better ordered national econ
omy. is within the specifically granted
power. But it is declared that State
power is nevertheless infringed by the
expenditure of the proceeds of the tax
to compensate farmers for the curtail-
ment Of their cotton acreage. Although
the farmer is placed under no legal
compulsion to reduce acreage it is said
that the mere offer of compensation
for so doing is species of economic
coercion which operates with the same
legal force and effect as though the
curtailment were made mandatory by
act OF Congress. In any event, 1t is in
sisted that even though not coercivs
the expenditure of public funds to in
duce the recipients to curtail produc-
tion Is itself an infringement Of State
power since the Federal Government
cannot invade the domain of the States
by the purchase" of performance of
acts which it has no power to compel.
Coercion Held Not
Charged by Taxpayer.
or the assertion that the payments
TO farmers are coercive, it is enough
70 say that no such contention is
pressed by the taxpayer, and no such
consequences were to be Anticipated
or appear to have resulted from the
administration of the act. The sug-
gestion of coercion finds no support in
the record or in any data showing the
actual operation of the act. Threat of
of economic coercion. Members of
ng-depressed industry have un-
doubtedly been tempted to curtail
acreage by the hope of resulting better
prices and by the proffered oppor-
tunity to obtain needed ready money.
But there is nothing to indicate that
those who accepted benefits were i'm
PEELED by fear of lower prices If they
did not accept, or that at any stage in
the operation of the plan a farmer
could say whether, apart from the GER
tainty of cash payments at specified
times, the advantage would lie with
curtailment of production, plus COM
pensation, rather than with the same
or increased acreage, plus the expected
rise In prices which actually occurred.
Although the agricultural adjustment |
art Was mt into oDeration In June
1888. the official reports of the Depart |
ment of Agriculture show that g..
143. 900 acres of productive cotton land,
II per cent Of the total, did not par |.