Evening star., 1952-12-09
Supreme Court Sees
Need 10 Clarity Rights
OF Food inspectors

|
clear hint from the Supreme
Court today that the Legislators
ought to clarity the right of Fed
eral food and drug inspectors tt
visit food manufacturing estab
lishments.
The court, in an 81 opinion
written by Justice Douglas. sait
yesterday it was unable Ito MAKE
sense out of the statute because
of some vague. if not contradic'
tory. provisions.
The opinion, from which Justic'
Burton dissented. held that Irs
D. Cardiff of Yakima. Wash.
should not have been fined $30(
for refusing to admit Food anc
Drug Administration inspectors
who visited the Washington De.
hydrated Food Co. plant in sur
prise visit in March. 1850.
Justice Douglas noted that ont
section of the law authorizes in
spectors to enter plants at rea.
sonable times with previous per-
mission of the owner. He observed
that another section provides 6
penalty against plant owners who
refuse to admit them. The de-
cision boiled down to an interpre-
tation that inspectors may visit
plants only if they ask and obtair
permission.
Cannot Sanction Penalty.
Words which are vague ano
fluid" Justice Douglas COM
mented, may be as much of 9
trap for the inocent as the an
cient laws of Caligula. We can.
not sanction taking a man by the
heels for refusing to grant the per-
mission which this act. on its
face. apparently gave him the
right to withhold. That would be
making an act criminal without
fair and effective notice"
The court handed down siz
other written opinions and long
list of orders in a busy decision
day.
1t refused to revieW-and, there
fore. left standing-a ruling by
the full bench of the U. S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Co.
lumbia that the Catholic Educa-
ton Press, inc, could properly
claim tax exemption here.
District tax officials had con-
tended the company was not en-
titled to the tax exemption as 9
scientific institution" buying anc
selling books mainly for Catholic
University teachers. After the ap.
peals court decision, one of the
judges disqualified himself be.
cause he had once been associated
with the university law school.
Other Rulings.
Other major rulings yesterda!
included:
/. A To opinion. written by Jus.
tice Black, with Justices Dougla!
and Burton dissenting. that a firm
that suffered losses from embezZle'
ment may claim tax deductions ii
later years and not necessarily il
the year of the thefts.
2. A 7-2 opinion written b!
Chief Justice Vinson with Jus
tticese Black and Douglas dis.
senting. that the Government il
not compelled to pay some Sc mil.
lion in claims by the Shell Co. o.
the Philippine Islands, Standard
Vacuum Oil Co. and Calte,
(Philippines) Co..
Those companies sought com.
pensation for oil terminal facilitie!
destroyed by the United State!
Army when the Japanese overrar
the Philippines in 1941. Their con.
tention was upheld by the Cour
of Claims here, but that court.
decision was reversed by the Su.
preme Court.
g. Another To opinion, writer
by Justice Minton, with Justice!
Black and Douglas dissenting, thai
the Supreme Court should no
rule on issuance of State court
temporary injunction against sec.
Iondary boycotts by labor unions
The Supreme Court held that il
has power to decide such cases
only where State Supreme. Courts
issue permanent injunctions and
final Judgment. The case al
Issue originated in Alabama.
Counterfeit Case Involved.
4. An 81 ruling, written by
Chief Justice Vinson, with JUS
tice Jackson dissenting. which va
Gated judgment by the Califor-
mia Supreme Court against
Charles A. Dixon, arrested on
Icounterfeiting charges by Federal
agents without warrant in 1948
IDixon's case was thrown out of
Federal Court, but he was tried
and convicted in State courts.
The Dixon case had reached
the Supreme Court once before.
The tribunal last year asked the
California court whether its judg-
ment against Dixon rested on
an adequate independent State
ground" or whether a decision
on points of Federal law was
necessary.
Chief Justice Wilson's opinion
yesterday remarked sharply that
I'VE still have received no advice
from the Supreme Court of Cali
fornia." The high court. there
fore. set aside the State court
Judgment. 1t directed the State
court to enter a new judgment,
explaining whether it's ruling was
based ON State law that evidence
obtained by Federal officers may
lbe used in a State court.
5. Refusal TO reconsider its re-
cent denial of review in the case
of Frank Costello, New York