Evening star., 1941-05-26
Kansas City Rate Case
Won by U. 5. in Fourth
Ruling by High Court
District Bench Sharply
Rebuked for Making
Wallace Give Testimony

Ending an eight-year legal battle,
the Supreme Court today upheld a
Aitterly- contested rate schedule
which the Agriculture Department
had fixed for commission men hand
ding livestock at the Kansas City
market. 1t was the fourth time the
case had been before the high tri-
bunal. ~~ -; .rf
AS the result of the decision, an
tmpounded fund of S586 900, repre-
senting the excess collected by the
commission ever the maximum set
by former Secretary of Agriculture
Wallace between 1888 and 1887, will
be returned to the farmers who
paid it.
The 6-to-1 decision of the court,
written by Justice Frankfurter, re-
versed the findings of a three Judge
Federal court in the Western Dis
trict Of Missouri which ruled that
the Secretary had not been an i'm
partial trier of facts in the pro-
Ceeding, and ordered the impounded
funds distributed to the marketing
agency.
District Court Sharply Rebuked.
Justice Roberts dissented from the
opinion, in which the court sharply
rebuked the District Court for re-
quiring Mr.. Wallace to appear as a
witness and testify as to the manner
in which he reached his decision.
The Secretary should never have
been subjected TO this examination"
the court said.
Justice Frankfurter added that
the proceeding before the Secretary
had a quality resembling that of
judicial proceeding, and such an
examination of judge would be
destruction Of judicial respon-
sibility." ;
Secretary Wallace reopened the
case after the Supreme Court had
held that the agencies had not had
a full and fair hearing, and when
the case came up again, the COM
mission men charged that Mr..
Wallace had displayed bias by
letter he wrote to the New York
Times finding fault with the
Supreme Courts decision.
Criticism Upheld.
''In publicly criticizing this courts
opinion, the Secretary merely in
dulged in a practice familiar in the
long history of American
litigation whereby unsuccessful
litigants and lawyers give vent TO
their disappointments N tavern or
press" Justice Frankfurter COM
mented. Cabinet ofrcers charged
by Congress with adjudieatory func-
tions are not assumed to be f1abby
creatures, any more than judges
are
Justice Roberts dissent was based
on the contention that full inquiry
should have been made of conditions
between 1888 and 1887, when a new
rate schedule went into effect to
supersede the 1888 schedule.
Reynolds Loses Tax Case.
The court ruled against Richard
J. Reynolds. North Carolina tobacco
heir and treasurer of the Demo-
cratic National Committee, in tax
controversy with the Federal Gov
ernment.
Justice Douglas delivered the de-
cision, involving the method of de-
termining ofit-made from the sale
in 1894 of stock left by Mr.. Reynolds
father or purchased by trustee.
Chief Justice Hughes and Justice
Roberts dissented.
Mr.. Reynolds contended the profit
should be based on the value of the
stock when he actually received it
April 4, 1884.
The commissioner of internal rev.
enue claimed that the proper basis
was the value at the time of the
death of Mr. Reynolds father in 1918 |
or, as to part of the stock, when ac-
quired later by trustee.