Evening star., 1936-01-20
Court
Continued From First Page.)

day on jurisdictional grounds. The
Talmadge case has been before the
court for some time. but no date has
been set for its argument.
In its gold decision. the high court
refused to review a ruling by the New
York Supreme Court awarding a Co.
lombia concern a judgment of only
$3,l35 instead Of the s5.307 it sought
on gold bonds Of the Industrial Mort
gage Bank of Finland.
The Compania de Inversiones Inter-
nacionales of Colombia contended it
should receive the larger amount on
account of dollar devaluation.
The $3l35 was the face value Of
the bonds which had been made pay
able in gold coin of the United States
of America of the standard of weight
and fineneSs as it existed on July
/, 1924"
The Supreme Court previously had
upheld the right of Congress to nullify
gold payment clauses in private con-
tracts. 1t ruled. however. that Con-
gress had no power to declare the gold
payment clause invalid in Govern
ment bonds.
Large Crowd Present.
For the third time in as many weeks,
a large throng had gathered today in
the Supreme Court Building.
When the doors of the marble
columned chamber were opened an
hour ahead of time. two long lines
of wouldbe spectators were waiting.
Only a few were admitted. but even
this was a concession In view of the
demand for seats from members Of
the bar and notables.
In the second row. near the bench,
David Lilienthal, member of the T.
v. A. Board, sat waiting anxiously.
He was the only board member on
hand.
James M. Beck, former solicitor
general, who argued the T. v. A. case
against the Government. chatted in q
front row with Representative Rankin,
Democrat. of Mississippi pending en-
try of the jurists. Rankin was the
first member of the congressional
group that fought the T. v. A. battle
in Congress to arrive.
When the T. v. A. case is decided
it may settle whether the Government
can sell surplus electricity from power
plants it erects in competition with
private utilities.
Whatever the ruling--and Govern
ment spokesmen expressed hope-it
will have an important bearing
on other power projects scattered
throughout the Nation from Passa-
maquoddy in Maine to Grand Coulee
in Washington State.
Some of these, including the Ten
nessee Valley Authority. were in
tended to provide "yardsticks" for
costs Of electric power. Administra-
ton men said they would set a stand
ard for measuring proper costs TO the
public.
Clarification Asked.
The Governments brief in the rice
millers' case did not attack the Su-
preme Court opinion. but asked for a
It was contended the
ruling contradicted an earlier one in
. similar case.
The court had held that injunc-
tions to stop collection of processing
taxes were valid. despite Federal
law against such injunctions. because
these collections were not legal taxes
but "exactions," improperly called
taxes.
The Government cited the law:
mo suit for the purpose of re-
the assessment or collection
of any tax shall be maintained in any
court
The brief said last Mondays order
was erroneous and inconsistent" with
the decision in Bailey VS.. George, and
drew a parallel between the two cases.
Adequate Remedy at Law.
In each it was said. the tax collec-
tor relied on the law quoted above
"as depriving the courts of jurisdic-
ton; in each case. there was an ade-
quate remedy at law, consisting of
suit for refund after payment; in
each case, the decision was reached
in the light of holding that the
statute was unconstitutional:
in each case, the exaction had not
been paid and the decision that the
statute was invalid enec-
tiVeiy prevented a collection there.
after
"As Bailey vs.. George is not men
toned or distinguished Tin the Rice
millers' opinion), it seems certain that
the opinion in the present cases will
be construed by other courts, in cases
raising the constitutionality Of tax
legislation. as overruling that deci-
sion"
The court was asked to stay its
mandate in the rice millers' case
and, instead. to af1irm the decree Of
the lower court in favor of the Gov
ernment.
The Governments reply to the Tai
madge suit said:
This cause Is not maintainable In
this court for the reason that the
United States is the real defendant
and it may not be sued without its
consent"
The suit of Georgia's Governor was
brought against Secretary Morgen-
thau, Secretary Wallace. Attorney
General Cummings and Guy T. Hell
vering, commissioner Of internal reve-
nue., to prevent enforcement Of the
act against the State Of Georgia, which
produces cotton on two prison farms,
The legislation, which many be-
lieved was doomed by the courts ruling
that A. A. A. was unconstitutional.
was intended to curtail cotton pro-
duction by imposing . heavy tax on
the amount ginned in excess Of =
quota fixed by the Secretary Of Agri-
culture.