Evening star., 1936-02-10
New York Price DifferentiaI
Sustained-Long's News
paper Tax 0utIaWed.
TRIBUNAL UNANIMOUS
ON LOUISIANA CASE
5.to-4 Decision Rendered in Case
Designed to Protect Small
Independent Diaries.
BY JOHN H. CLINE.

The Supreme Court adjourned
again today without delivering its
long-awalted decision in the Ten
nessee Valley act case.
A large crowd of spectators had as
sembled in hope of hearing this mo-
mentous opinion, which now cannot
be delivered before next Monday.
The court. however, handed down
two important rulings. The nine
justices unanimously struck down a
Louisiana statute enacted in 1894 at
the behest Of the late Senator Huey
P. Long, imposing per cent gross
receipts tax on advertisements in
newspapers and other publications
with weekly circulation of 10000 or
more. A three Judge Federal District
Court in Louisiana had held the leg
islation unconstitutional and enjoined
the State from enforcing it.
Newspapers challenging the legisla-
ticn contended it violated freedom
Of the press" and was intended to
punish them for opposing the Long
political forces.
Milk Act Upheld.
In the other cases, the court. in a
5-to-4 opinion, upheld the validity of
the New York milk control acts of
1888 and 1884. This decision affirmed
the right of the New York Legislature
10 fix milk price differential Of l
cent per quart in favor of independent
dealers as against competitors oper-
ating under well-advertised trade
names
The action of the court in with
holding its T. V. A. decision revived
rumors of serious disagreement
among the justices on this vital case,
which they have had under considera-
ton for about two months. Their
decision, when rendered, is expected
to pass on the right of the Govern
ment to sell electrical power in COM
petition with private utilities to set
up a "yardStick" to determine the
fairness of rates charged by the lat
ter. Centered in Tennessee. the activ-
tiles of the T. v. A. affect seven
Southern States and involve expendi-
lures of vast sums of money by the
Federal Government.
Reviews Moves Against Press.
The decision in the newspaper tax
case was rendered by Associate JUS
tice Sutherland.
The law provided that any person
violating any provision of it was guilty
of a misdemeanor and subject to a
fine of $500, six months imprison-
ment. or both. Corporations could
have been fined $500 for each violation.
Justice Sutherland reviewed at
length the history of legislation at
tempting to abridge freedom of the
press. In announcing the courts find
ing that the Louisiana statute was
step in the same direction, Justice
Sutherland said:
In the light of all that has now
been said, it is evident that the re-
stricted rules of the English law in
respect to the freedom of the press,
| in force when the Constitution was
adopted, were never accepted by the
| American colonists. and that by the
| llSI dlllCIlNtlICAI IL was LIlcduL W pre-
clude the National Government, and
by the fourteenth amendment to pre-
clude the, States, from adopting any
form of previous reStaint upon printed
! publications. or their circulation.
1T is not intended by anything we
have said to suggest that the owners
of newspapers are immune from any
of the ordinary forms of taxation for
support of the Government. But this
is not an ordinary form of tax, but
one single in kind. with long history
of hostile misuse against the freedom
of the press.
Public Service Stressed.
'"The predominant purpose of the
grant of immunity here invoked lin
the ConStitution) was to preserve an
| untrammelled press as a vital source of
| public information. The newspapers,
magazines and other journals Of the
| (Sae II " page 81