Evening star., 1936-01-13
Rice Decision
Supreme Court Rules Proc.
essing Tax Must Be
Returned.
BY the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
The text Of the unanimous Supreme
Court ruling in the rice case follows:
This is one Of eight companion
cases. They were consolidated for
hearing by the District Court. 1t will
be sufficient briefly to state the facts
in No. SIT:
The petitioner, q professor of rice,
filed its bill in the District Court for
Eastern Louisiana to restrain the re-
spondent from assessing or collecting
taxes levied for the month of Septem-
Der, 1885, and subsequent months. pur-
suant to the agricultural adjustment
act, 1888, as amended by the act OF
August "a, 1885. The bill charges the
exaction Is unconstitutional and
alleges the respondent threatens COL
lection by distraint, which will cause
irreparable injury, as the petitioner
has no adequate remedy at law to
recover what may be collected.
A preliminary injunction was sought.
The respondent filed motion to dis
miss, citing revised statutes 1924 and
section 81 (A) of the amended agri-
cultural adjustment act as prohibiting
restraint of collection. and also assert
ing that the petitioner had q plan,
adequate, and complete remedy at law.
The court refused an interlocutory in
junction and entered a decree dis
missing the bill. Appeal was perfected
to the Circuit Court Of Appeals. The
district Judge refused to grant an
injunction pending the appeal. Appli-
cation to the Circuit Court Of Appeals
for such an injunction was denied
upon the view that the petitioner had
an adequate remedy at law and the
statute deprived the court Of jurisdic-
ton to restrain collection.
In praying a writ of certiorari. the
petitioner asserted that by reason of
the provisions Of section 81 (d), it
would be impossible to recover taxes
collected. even though the act were
unconstitutional, since the section for
bids recovery except upon a showing
of facts not susceptible of proof. This
court granted the writ and restrained
collection Of the tax upon condition
that the petitioner should pay the
amount of the accruing taxes to q de-
pository. to the joint credit of petit
tioner and respondent, such funds to
be withdrawn only upon the further
order Of the court. The cause was
advanced for hearing and has been
fully argued on the questions of the
constitutionality Of the exaction and
the inadequacy Of the remedy for re-
covery Of taxes paid.
The changes made by the amenda.
tory act Of August "a, 1885, do not
cure the infirmities Of the original
act which were the basis Of decision
in United States VS.. Butler (January
6, 1850. The exaction still lacks the
quality Of a true tax. It remains q
means for calculating the regulation
of agricultural production, . matter
not within the powers of Congress.
We 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 respondent. and. in view of the
decision in the Butler case, herafter
cannot be required 50 to do. II the
respondent should now attempt to
collect the tax by distraint he would
be q trespasser. The decree of the
District Court will be vacated, an ap-
propriate order entered directing the
repayment to the petitioner of the
funds impounded pendente lite, and
the cause remanded to the District
Court for the entry of q decree en-
joining collection Of the assailed ex-
action. A similar disposition viii be
made Of the companion cases.
So ordered.