Evening star., 1939-04-18
WASHINGTON D. G.,
Marketing Quota
Ruling Hailed by
Department Heads
Courts 6-to-2 Decision
Gives Go Signal on
Farm Program

The Agriculture Department today
hailed the Supreme Court decision
upholding the validity OF the mar
keting quota provision Of the 1888
Farm Act, which controls commerce
IN farm commodities rather than
production Of farm commodities.
Direct production control was for
hidden by the Supreme Court on
January 6, 1896. in its Hoosac Mills
decision, which, like yesterdays
opinion, was delivered by Justice
Roberts.
The decision gives the go-ahead
signal to Federal officials who, since
1888. have been seeking to evolve a
constitutional planned agriculture.
After they tried direct production
control. which was unconstitutional,
they tried system Of control by re-
wards for cooperation in soil con-
servation. This proved ineffective.
Finally, year ago. Congress pre-
sented the Agriculture Department
with marketing control, which is
ramified by "the ever-normal gran
ary" The latter was not question
before the court.
Two Justices Dissent.
The whole point of the case de-
cided yesterday rested on whether
the court would determine between
production and marketing" 1t
did, by vote of 6 to 2, with JUS
tices Butler and McReynolds dis
senting. The suit was brought by
Georgia and Florida tobacco grow
ers who objected to the marketing
quotas for their crop allotted by the
Agriculture Department. The case
was known as Milford VS.. Smith.
The principal point in the court
decision yesterday was that the ma
jority of justices regarded crop con-
troll as a local matter, beyond the
province of the Federal Govern
ment. whereas marketing control is
a matter of interstate commerce,
which falls into the Federal regu-
latory field.
Federal agriculture officials ac-
cept the decision as affecting quota
provisions not only for tobacco but
also for the four other crops men,
toned specifically in the 1888 farm
laW-cotton, corn and rice. The
first two now present the Govern
ment with serious surplus problems
which the quota sytsem is designed
to eliminate or help in eliminating.
Quotas may be imposed by the
Agriculture Department on any one
of the five crops when the estimated
supply reaches price-depressing
level and when farmers, in a refer
endum, approve the restriction by
tWo-thirds majority of those vot-
ing. A national marketing quota is
fixed for the whole crop, and in
dividual auotments are assigned to
farmers on the basis of their past
production.
Penalties Imposed.
For selling beyond quotas penal
ties are imposed The penalties
are collected for the Government
in the case of tobacco by warehouse
auctioneers. The case decided yes
terday was brought against a Geor-
gia warehouse auctioneer by to-
bacco growers who deliberately
sought test of the laws validity.
Several thousand other tobacco
growers paid penalties, but the
money has been held in escrow
pending the Supreme Court action.
Tobacco. indeed, was the only
quota crop last year, and growers
of the 1899 crop have voted against
quota. Cotton farmers, however,
have approved marketing limita-
ton on their 1899 output. Secretary
Wallace will decide next month
whether marketing referendum
for wheat will be held this year.
A decision on a corn election will
be made in August and on rice in
December.
The minority opinion delivered
yesterday by Justice Butler refused
to admit that in essence there is
any difference between crop and
marketing control. The justice de-
clared:
Mere inspection of the statute
and Secretary's regulations unmis-
takably disclose purpose to raise
price by leSSenlng prOductlOn.'
Justice Butler was with the ma
jority in the Hoosac Mills decision.
which was decided to 3. The
three who upheld the Federal Gov
ernment's authority in 1886 to reg
ulate agricultural output were JUS
tices Stone, Cardozo and Brandeis.
Only the first remains on the court.
Two other justices of 1886, Van
peventer and Sutherland, who went
with the majority on the Hoosac
Mills case, have retired. replaced by
Justices Black and Reed, who yes
terday upheld the Secretary of Agri-
culture.
Chief Justice Hughes. like Justice
Roberts, admitted the difference in
the Hoosac Mills and the Mulford
cases. Justice Frankfurter, a new
member, voted with the majority.
Law Procedure Institute
To Ra r&G Ton;oh+